WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:16.000 Again, this is a series in the federal facility academy webinars. If you complete all 11 and also you complete the three-day in-person or the three-day online course 00:00:16.000 --> 00:00:21.000 You would be eligible to receive the certificate 00:00:21.000 --> 00:00:38.000 The overall certificate for completing the entire series, and then the 3-day course, acknowledging your dedication to learning about federal facilities. Now, the 3-day course is only available for those that are in the federal government or the state government 00:00:38.000 --> 00:00:52.000 working with federal facilities. Unfortunately, if you're in academia, if you're a contractor, engineering firm, you would not be eligible for the total all the total certificate, being 00:00:52.000 --> 00:00:56.000 Including that 3-day course. All right, next slide, please. 00:00:56.000 --> 00:01:12.000 So you attend, as I mentioned, at the end Shelly or I will mention how to get your certificate for this course. I already mentioned the three day course will provide the dates for that three-day course if you are not tracking 00:01:12.000 --> 00:01:16.000 the dates for the 3 day course in August and in November. 00:01:16.000 --> 00:01:33.000 The online course, as you know, is open to the public, and as I mentioned, the in-person class is only for a selected population. All right, next slide. 00:01:33.000 --> 00:01:46.000 I stand corrected. We do. This is information here. So the three day course in persons in August in San Francisco. And then the three day online course will be in November. 00:01:46.000 --> 00:01:50.000 And the three-day online course is instructor-led. 00:01:50.000 --> 00:01:53.000 Great. Next slide, please. 00:01:53.000 --> 00:01:58.000 All right, so this brings us to why we are here today. 00:01:58.000 --> 00:02:04.000 This is the federal facilities online academy 5 year review. 00:02:04.000 --> 00:02:15.000 And at this time, we'll be turning it over to our three amazing instructors. And the lead instructor will take over and then she'll guide you through 00:02:15.000 --> 00:02:23.000 Today's webinar 00:02:23.000 --> 00:02:28.000 Great, next slide 00:02:28.000 --> 00:02:35.000 Great. Well, good afternoon. My name is Jana Dawson. I'm an RPM in Region 4 00:02:35.000 --> 00:02:45.000 I've worked for EPA for about five and a half years. I'm currently in the Federal Facilities Branch, providing oversight of Department of Energy facilities 00:02:45.000 --> 00:02:56.000 I started my career as an analytical and radiological chemist, and then an environmental program manager working at a DOE facility. It was Rocky Flats 00:02:56.000 --> 00:03:08.000 In Golden, Colorado, and then I moved on to working as a consultant on RCRA and CERCLA compliance issues at various federal facilities 00:03:08.000 --> 00:03:13.000 Specializing consulting and radiological issues. 00:03:13.000 --> 00:03:28.000 So myself and our other two instructors will be providing this information today. Haley Pearson and Jennifer Edwards, and I'm going to turn it over to them so they can introduce themselves as well. 00:03:28.000 --> 00:03:45.000 Hi there. My name is Haley Pryson. I'm very excited to be here with you again for one of these better facility webinars. I have been with EPA for a little over two and a half years. Initially, I was in Fifth row, which was the Facility Restoration and Reuse Office 00:03:45.000 --> 00:04:00.000 Since then, we've had a reorganization within our branch of EPA, and I am located within OSEM, and I am in the cleanup implementation branch. Previously to my three years at EPA 00:04:00.000 --> 00:04:18.000 I finished my master's degree at Indiana University in environmental studies, focusing on natural resource conservation and management, as well as environmental law and policy. Following that, I did a year as a Cooley doing environmental restoration work out of 00:04:18.000 --> 00:04:34.000 Seattle and the Puget Sound region. Actually, some of those were on former Superfund sites working on the Duwamish River and the, a watershed in Tacoma, Washington. I see those of you who said your favorite tall structure was the 00:04:34.000 --> 00:04:49.000 the Space Needle, big fan of that as well. And then I was working with a couple different city governments, one in Bloomington, Indiana, doing community engagement work, and then did, was a supervisor for an environmental program within 00:04:49.000 --> 00:04:56.000 Bellevue, Washington. So that's a little bit about my history, and I will pass it over to Jen. 00:04:56.000 --> 00:05:11.000 Hi, good afternoon. Excited to be here. My name is Jen Edwards. I work in the same branch as Haley in the Superfund program at EPA in the cleanup implementation branch. My focus has 00:05:11.000 --> 00:05:27.000 Historically been five-year views in general, but mainly, private side five-year views, coordinating with, Haley and others on federal facility work. I have been in the Superfund program and at EPA for more than 17 years, 00:05:27.000 --> 00:05:38.000 Pretty much doing the same work the whole time, a few short jaunts as an RPM in region 10 and then in our financial office here at EPA. 00:05:38.000 --> 00:05:41.000 Thank you. 00:05:41.000 --> 00:05:43.000 Okay 00:05:43.000 --> 00:05:51.000 Great. Well, we'll go ahead and start the instruction. I did want to mention real quick that if you have questions 00:05:51.000 --> 00:06:06.000 Please type them in the Q&A and we will respond to those as soon as we can. Sometimes in some instances it may be at the very end of the webinar, but we will make every attempt to respond to all of those. 00:06:06.000 --> 00:06:22.000 All right, so five-year reviews are conducted to assess the progress and effectiveness of cleanup efforts at national priority list sites over time to ensure the protective measures put in place under the CERCLA process 00:06:22.000 --> 00:06:29.000 Remain protective such that sites do not pose risk to human health and the environment. 00:06:29.000 --> 00:06:34.000 Next slide, please 00:06:34.000 --> 00:06:44.000 Okay, so the agenda for today is listed here. First, we're going to talk about five-year review as far as the purpose and the regulatory context 00:06:44.000 --> 00:06:52.000 Next, how to review a 5-year review. The community involvement requirements for 5-year reviews, protectiveness statements 00:06:52.000 --> 00:07:04.000 We'll conduct a case study that you'll get to participate in. Then we'll talk about the independent findings. And finally, addressing emergency 00:07:04.000 --> 00:07:11.000 Excuse me, emerging contaminants. All right, next slide, please. 00:07:11.000 --> 00:07:28.000 And I'm going to turn it over to our webinar group to walk you through this poll. 00:07:28.000 --> 00:07:38.000 And I think Shelly might be leading us through this. 00:07:38.000 --> 00:07:56.000 Sorry about that. So if you could please enter in the Q&A, what experiences have you had with five-year reviews at federal facility Superfund sites? Please enter briefly your comments about that. Something short and sweet 00:07:56.000 --> 00:08:11.000 Thank you. 00:08:11.000 --> 00:08:18.000 Okay, we're receiving various answers. Some say none prepared to reviewing them. 00:08:18.000 --> 00:08:26.000 NJ State PM, none, some independent assessment and one FYR 00:08:26.000 --> 00:08:30.000 Periodically, as a consultant supporting clients 00:08:30.000 --> 00:08:33.000 fairly familiar with FYRs at FF 00:08:33.000 --> 00:08:39.000 written FYRs and headquarters CIB FYR coordinator. None yet. 00:08:39.000 --> 00:08:47.000 Writing tests for equal portions of five-year review at my site, industrial cleanup and restoration 00:08:47.000 --> 00:08:53.000 Sometimes I feel like they just update the past five year review and don't really look at the issues again properly. 00:08:53.000 --> 00:08:57.000 I have completed one review for the Paduca Gaset 00:08:57.000 --> 00:09:01.000 Gaseous diffusion plant in Paducah, Kentucky 00:09:01.000 --> 00:09:06.000 I work on them every year that there is a FFF Fyr 00:09:06.000 --> 00:09:11.000 Periodically with federal facilities for 3 years now, and periodically see FYR. 00:09:11.000 --> 00:09:12.000 And I can 00:09:12.000 --> 00:09:14.000 Still new and learning 00:09:14.000 --> 00:09:15.000 Okay. 00:09:15.000 --> 00:09:22.000 I can do it with you, Shelly. Sinafuse a state regulator, reviewer of QAPs 00:09:22.000 --> 00:09:29.000 Former Army Air Force bases, few as a state regulator 00:09:29.000 --> 00:09:37.000 I had done a lot working with Monica McKady. Reviewed five reviews for approximately nine years. 00:09:37.000 --> 00:09:40.000 Lacks 00:09:40.000 --> 00:09:43.000 Yeah, that's it. So it kind of 00:09:43.000 --> 00:09:48.000 It's across the horizon as far as experience years 00:09:48.000 --> 00:09:54.000 Someone mentioned NASA 00:09:54.000 --> 00:10:04.000 And they're still coming in. So I guess we'll go ahead and stop at this time. 00:10:04.000 --> 00:10:10.000 Okay, great. Thank you for that information. We can go ahead and move on. 00:10:10.000 --> 00:10:12.000 Great. 00:10:12.000 --> 00:10:18.000 Okay, so next we're going to talk about the regulatory context of five-year reviews. 00:10:18.000 --> 00:10:20.000 Next slide, please. 00:10:20.000 --> 00:10:31.000 This slide lists the legal requirements that are the basis for conducting the five-year reviews under CERCLA and the National Contingency Plan 00:10:31.000 --> 00:10:38.000 The statute for five-year review requirement is found in CERCLA section 121 00:10:38.000 --> 00:10:42.000 And it mandates that the remedial action 00:10:42.000 --> 00:10:50.000 Must be reviewed every five years if there are hazardous substances left in place 00:10:50.000 --> 00:10:57.000 And that it also allows for the evaluation and ongoing 00:10:57.000 --> 00:11:04.000 consideration of the continued protectiveness of human health in the environment 00:11:04.000 --> 00:11:21.000 The statute is codified in the NCP in 40 CFR Part 300.430 of 4.2. And it more specifically explains the requirement for the lead agency to conduct these reviews 00:11:21.000 --> 00:11:29.000 When contamination remains above levels safe for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure 00:11:29.000 --> 00:11:44.000 These reviews are critical for assessing the effectiveness of the cleanup actions over time and determining if further or alternate remediation or controls are necessary to maintain the protectiveness under CERC law. 00:11:44.000 --> 00:11:49.000 All right, next slide, please. 00:11:49.000 --> 00:11:55.000 As I mentioned, a five-year review should determine whether the remedy at a site 00:11:55.000 --> 00:12:02.000 Is or upon completion will be protective of human health and the environment over time. 00:12:02.000 --> 00:12:12.000 Follow-up actions should be identified for any recommendations that ensure protectiveness 00:12:12.000 --> 00:12:22.000 So the 5-year review addresses the following technical questions. Is the remedy functioning as intended by the decision document? 00:12:22.000 --> 00:12:32.000 Are the exposure assumptions, toxicity data, cleanup levels, and remedial action objectives, or RAOs 00:12:32.000 --> 00:12:35.000 Used at the time of the remedy, still valid 00:12:35.000 --> 00:12:43.000 Has any other information come to light that could call into question the protectiveness of the remedy? 00:12:43.000 --> 00:12:54.000 A content checklist for five-year review reports and a 5-year review site inspection checklist exist to guide the information that should be gathered. 00:12:54.000 --> 00:13:03.000 The checklist and guidance can be found in the 2001 five-year review guidance issued by APA 00:13:03.000 --> 00:13:08.000 And we can put a link to that 00:13:08.000 --> 00:13:18.000 Information in the Q&A, but also just so you know if you just Google on EPA five-year review guidance 00:13:18.000 --> 00:13:22.000 It'll be easy to find. 00:13:22.000 --> 00:13:27.000 Next slide, please. 00:13:27.000 --> 00:13:34.000 Okay, so consistent with executive Order 12580. 00:13:34.000 --> 00:13:43.000 Other federal facilities are responsible for ensuring that five-year reviews are conducted at sites where required or appropriate 00:13:43.000 --> 00:13:53.000 For federal facility sites, the lead agency conducts the review, prepares the report, and submits the report to EPA 00:13:53.000 --> 00:13:59.000 And state regulators as appropriate for review and comment. 00:13:59.000 --> 00:14:08.000 The lead agency is responsible for ensuring that the recommendations and follow-up actions in the report are completed. 00:14:08.000 --> 00:14:16.000 Additional information can also be found at APA's website for Superfund 5-year reviews. 00:14:16.000 --> 00:14:25.000 And again, if you search on EPA Superfund 5-year reviews, you will find all of those guidance documents. 00:14:25.000 --> 00:14:30.000 Okay, next slide, please. 00:14:30.000 --> 00:14:40.000 So in August of 2011, EPA issued the Program Priorities Memorandum for federal facility five-year reviews 00:14:40.000 --> 00:14:49.000 So this memorandum was generated to help EPA RPMs improve the timeliness of the five-year review process 00:14:49.000 --> 00:14:54.000 And the follow-through on issues at these federal facility sites 00:14:54.000 --> 00:14:59.000 Being aware of this policy can help you understand 00:14:59.000 --> 00:15:08.000 The EPA rpm's role in this process as they review and submit comments on the 5-year review reports. 00:15:08.000 --> 00:15:13.000 So the policy provides guidance for the following items 00:15:13.000 --> 00:15:15.000 First 00:15:15.000 --> 00:15:26.000 How to determine whether to concur or not on the protectiveness determination that the facility has provided for specific operable units 00:15:26.000 --> 00:15:34.000 The RPM is encouraged to do this whether or not the report is signed and completed by the other federal agency. 00:15:34.000 --> 00:15:36.000 Next 00:15:36.000 --> 00:15:43.000 Write a concurrence or non-concurrence letter to the other federal agency following the completion of the review. 00:15:43.000 --> 00:15:53.000 Then track and update the issues and recommendations affecting the protectiveness identification or evaluation 00:15:53.000 --> 00:16:05.000 And finally, identify the next five-year review due dates and generate these due dates in a document for all future five-year reviews 00:16:05.000 --> 00:16:08.000 Based on the statutory review timeframe 00:16:08.000 --> 00:16:14.000 This guarantees that the 5-year reviews are completed at least once every 5 years 00:16:14.000 --> 00:16:19.000 And for more information, you can consult the actual guidance document 00:16:19.000 --> 00:16:29.000 August 2011 Program Priorities Memorandum for Federal Facility 5-year reviews 00:16:29.000 --> 00:16:35.000 And again, you can Google on those keywords and you will find that in a web search. 00:16:35.000 --> 00:16:44.000 So I will now let Haley take the floor. She's going to provide you with more information on how to review a five-year review document. 00:16:44.000 --> 00:16:47.000 Next slide. 00:16:47.000 --> 00:17:03.000 Perfect. Hello. So as Jenna said, we're going to be talking about this entire process. It can be very long and scary at first, but hopefully this can offer some at least guidance on where you can go to find more information throughout this whole process and a little bit 00:17:03.000 --> 00:17:07.000 What this process will look like. Next slide, please. 00:17:07.000 --> 00:17:24.000 Cool. So, the review writer from the lead federal agency should use the 2001 comprehensive Five-Year Review Guidance as a guide throughout the five-year review process. And again, there are links on this slide here that you can use to find all of these guidances that we are mentioning throughout this 00:17:24.000 --> 00:17:40.000 So since 2001 EPA has also issued several updates and supplemental guidance. These supplements offer helpful guidance for addressing substantive issues and concerns. These also include we have templates for these 00:17:40.000 --> 00:17:50.000 And trying to create these to make the process as easy and seamless as possible, especially when dealing with, you know, multiple contractors 00:17:50.000 --> 00:18:03.000 Yeah, visit the cleanups at Federal Facilities webpage linked here, to stay up to date on tools and training resources. Also, be sure to check with your agency for any agency-specific 5-year review tools and guidance documents. 00:18:03.000 --> 00:18:19.000 When starting this whole process for five-year reviews, the lead federal agency project manager should contact the state RPM and technical specialists in their agency to stay up to date on any emerging contaminants, exposure pathways, and state and federal standards. 00:18:19.000 --> 00:18:38.000 Also, be sure to check original sources, such as the Integrated Risk Information System and relevant state websites as well. Early on, the five-year review team should identify any new or changed regulations, including ARRs, which are those applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements 00:18:38.000 --> 00:18:43.000 and seek agreement on whether they impact the protectiveness or the remedy. 00:18:43.000 --> 00:18:49.000 Next slide, please. 00:18:49.000 --> 00:19:01.000 So EPA's involvement as far as five-year reviews looks different within the federal facility program as opposed to private super fund sites. So this is going to talk a little bit about what the process looks like for federal facilities. 00:19:01.000 --> 00:19:15.000 So first, the lead federal agency submits a draft 5-year review report to the regulatory agencies for comment. The amount of review time for the regulatory agencies is usually based on the site's FFA 00:19:15.000 --> 00:19:30.000 Generally, the regulatory agencies will have 60 days for review and submitting those comments. Another 45 to 60 days is generally allowed for the final review, depending on the terms of document review under the FFA. 00:19:30.000 --> 00:19:42.000 During the review time at the EPA RPM will solicit comments from technical, legal, and headquarters staff. These comments will be consolidated by the RPM and sent to the lead federal agency. 00:19:42.000 --> 00:19:51.000 The lead agency will usually respond to comments and generate a final draft that reflects the regulator comments that were provided. 00:19:51.000 --> 00:20:06.000 The EPA RPM will review the final draft and submit any comments back to the Lee federal agency. Once all of those comments are addressed, the document will be finalized by the Lee Federal Agency and circulated among the lead agency for signature. 00:20:06.000 --> 00:20:14.000 Depending on the required authority, an EPA may need to sign the report and write a concurrence letter regarding the protectiveness determinations. 00:20:14.000 --> 00:20:31.000 In the concurrence letter, EPA will concur or non-concur on the protectiveness statement for each OU, identify the issues that will be tracked in SEMS, and state the due date for the next review based on the statutory requirement of a five-year review due no less than once every five years. 00:20:31.000 --> 00:20:48.000 If the federal agency and EPA are not able to agree on the protectiveness of the remedy, EPA may issue an independent assessment of the protectiveness of the remedy, and we will be talking about those later on in the presentation. Again, that's one of those big differences between 00:20:48.000 --> 00:20:52.000 five-year reviews on the federal facility side and the private side of things. 00:20:52.000 --> 00:21:09.000 So for complex sites with multiple OUs, which are those operable units, so kind of those smaller sections of the site, obtaining signatures may take many months. A schedule agreement created and agreed to by reviewers during the planning stage can ensure that draft reports are keyed into the final 00:21:09.000 --> 00:21:11.000 5-year review report timeline. 00:21:11.000 --> 00:21:14.000 Next slide, please. 00:21:14.000 --> 00:21:26.000 So, lead agency project managers should engage the integrated project team early in the review process and encourage regular communication between all of the team members of this project. 00:21:26.000 --> 00:21:37.000 This allows for real-time input from environmental regulators, legal representatives, and others, and also helps to identify and address issues proactively instead of waiting until later on within the review process. 00:21:37.000 --> 00:21:52.000 For federal facility sites, at minimum, the lead agency should begin planning 3 years in advance of the statutory deadline to secure the funding and contract support needed to complete the review process and check the expiration of the contractor's contract. 00:21:52.000 --> 00:21:58.000 Data collection and report writing should begin at least 12 to 18 months ahead of the due date. 00:21:58.000 --> 00:22:13.000 You may need to adjust this timeline depending on the size and complexity of the site, whether you elect to have public meetings or comment periods, and any changes in site conditions, such as snow that may cause delays in the review process. I know this is 00:22:13.000 --> 00:22:28.000 there's something that comes up a lot when it comes to, like, sites in Alaska where, you know, the ground is so covered by snow and ice a lot of the year, so you really have to plan ahead on when you can get sampling and things like that done to address protectiveness for the five-year review. 00:22:28.000 --> 00:22:32.000 Next slide, please. 00:22:32.000 --> 00:22:45.000 This table shows that not all OUs need to be evaluated during the five-year review process. Generally, a decision document should be in place and a remedial action initiated within the OU that leaves waste in place. 00:22:45.000 --> 00:22:48.000 If the OU has no decision document 00:22:48.000 --> 00:23:05.000 then a remedy has not been selected, and the evaluation is not required. If an RA start has not occurred at an NPL site requiring a statutory review, a review is not required. If the criteria for review have been met anywhere in the OU, an evaluation should take place and a protectiveness statement issued 00:23:05.000 --> 00:23:22.000 When there are OU sub-areas suitable for UUUE, they can be carved out of the evaluations. So UUUE, which is that unlimited use and unrestricted exposure, means that the selected remedy will place no restrictions on the potential use of the land or other natural resources 00:23:22.000 --> 00:23:38.000 Unless an OU meets UUUE criteria, it should be evaluated once the trigger for evaluation is met. If an OU is not UUUE at the time of the ROD decision document, an evaluation should take place and a protectiveness statement issued 00:23:38.000 --> 00:23:50.000 The first five-year review report after the OU meets UUE conditions should include an evaluation that supports this and include a protectiveness statement for that OU. 00:23:50.000 --> 00:24:03.000 The report should state that this is the last time that that OU will be evaluated in a five-year review. The OU would not be part of future evaluations unless toxicity or other factors affecting UUUE are no longer valid. 00:24:03.000 --> 00:24:19.000 Discretionary evaluations may be performed at OUs where they are not required by CERCLA state or statute or policy. These are performed at the discretion of the lead federal agency. For example, where a 5-year abuse is required under a RCRA corrective action. 00:24:19.000 --> 00:24:31.000 No further action and no further remedial action planned does not mean UUUE. OUs deleted from the NPL will still need evaluation if they are not UUUE. 00:24:31.000 --> 00:24:36.000 Next slide, please 00:24:36.000 --> 00:24:54.000 Cool, so the next two slides are going to talk about some common comments that are placed on those draft federal facility five-year views once they are received from EPA's end of things. So again, you know, these are not present on all sites, but these are some of the more common comments that are received 00:24:54.000 --> 00:24:57.000 by the elite federal agency 00:24:57.000 --> 00:25:14.000 The top five comments all relate to the protectiveness statements. The purpose of the five-year review is to assess the protectiveness of a remedy. Therefore, assessing, choosing, supporting, and writing protectiveness statements correctly is a main focus for reviewers of five-year review reports. 00:25:14.000 --> 00:25:25.000 First, there should be one protectiveness statement for every OU evaluated during the review process. Not every OU requires an evaluation, as we learned in the slide before. 00:25:25.000 --> 00:25:33.000 Second, a protectiveness statement is not needed if certain criteria are met, such as OUs where remedial action has not begun 00:25:33.000 --> 00:25:47.000 Or an OU was U-U-U-E in the last 5-year review, and remains UUUE. So this means that the selected remedy will place no restrictions on the potential use of land or other natural resources in that specific area. 00:25:47.000 --> 00:26:03.000 So the third comment, OU is still under construction, need a protective statement in a statutory review. In policy reviews follow on construction activities after a ROD amendment will also get a review. The will be protective statement may apply 00:26:03.000 --> 00:26:22.000 Fourth, protectiveness statements should be consistent with five-year review guidance exhibit 4 to 6, and the 2012 OSWER Memorandum. Five year review writers often choose the wrong protectiveness statement. Decision logic for choosing protectiveness statements will be discussed later on in the training. 00:26:22.000 --> 00:26:39.000 Fifth, once a site achieves construction complete, a site-wide protectiveness statement is issued. A site-wide protectiveness determination is required and will generally be the same protectiveness determination as the least protective OU at the site. 00:26:39.000 --> 00:26:49.000 This additional protectiveness statement should not be included until construction completement has been achieved because all site remedies may not have been selected and put in place yet. 00:26:49.000 --> 00:26:52.000 All right, next slide 00:26:52.000 --> 00:27:07.000 Cool, so we're continuing on with some of these common comments that are received. So sixth, the report should stay focused on the protectiveness message. Distilled messages from operations and maintenance, O&M, and long-term monitoring reports. 00:27:07.000 --> 00:27:11.000 Do not cut and paste, synthesize this information. 00:27:11.000 --> 00:27:27.000 Seventh, the report needs to provide adequate rationale for the protectiveness statements. A remedial action should address one or more remedial action objectives and the technical evaluation should provide evidence that the remedial action is functioning as intended and meeting the RAOs. 00:27:27.000 --> 00:27:42.000 So the eighth comment, the technical evaluation must address RIOs or risk basis of the ROD. Because remedies are selected to meet risk-based RAOs, these should be the basis of the issues and recommendations identified in the report. 00:27:42.000 --> 00:27:59.000 Okay, ninth, the progress since last five-year review section should include adequate information about the status of issues being tracked since the last five-year review. The choices are continued in the next five-year review where the issue would be carry over into the new issues list 00:27:59.000 --> 00:28:11.000 complete or considered and not implemented. This information is required in the Superfund Enterprise Management Systems, which is EPA's Data Tracking and Project Management Tool 00:28:11.000 --> 00:28:26.000 A 10th comment for a five-year reviews for federal facilities, EPA may only track issues that affect current or future protectiveness, identify an issue from any missing rod elements required for long-term protectiveness in a decision document. 00:28:26.000 --> 00:28:34.000 Consider emerging contaminants and how these chemicals may protect and how these may impact protectiveness for the site. 00:28:34.000 --> 00:28:43.000 Keeping these comments in mind, so all of these from this slide and the last slide will help you develop streamlined five-year review reports that are easy to read and review. 00:28:43.000 --> 00:28:47.000 Next slide, please 00:28:47.000 --> 00:28:54.000 Cool. So, this here shows just two resources that are available for 00:28:54.000 --> 00:29:12.000 further understanding of the role of headquarters. We have the memorandum on program priorities, as well as the 2018 Superfund memorandum and support for the annual report to Congress. So this is talking about the five-year 00:29:12.000 --> 00:29:27.000 you report to Congress that is created each year. Within this list, specifically for federal facilities, something important to note is that there's a list of all of the independent findings of protectiveness that are found on any of these sites, and we'll talk further about 00:29:27.000 --> 00:29:34.000 What this means and what this list is later on in this presentation 00:29:34.000 --> 00:29:36.000 Okay, next slide, please. 00:29:36.000 --> 00:29:55.000 All right, looking at the headquarters review process, so the Superfund program tracks and reviews all federal facility five-year reviews for sites on the NPL. So the review timelines, which we talked about earlier, strives to complete internal review of each draft document in 30 calendar days 00:29:55.000 --> 00:30:05.000 The regional coordinator, as well as the five-year review coordinator, will review, and those comments will be forwarded to the RPM. So just a quick review of things that we've talked about so far in these slides. 00:30:05.000 --> 00:30:10.000 All right, next slide, please. 00:30:10.000 --> 00:30:26.000 So a big thing that we talk about within the federal facility program at headquarters is promoting national consistency. 5-year reviews are done at sites all throughout the country using a lot of different other federal agencies. So it's really important that we are able to 00:30:26.000 --> 00:30:29.000 promote national consistency within these reviews. 00:30:29.000 --> 00:30:41.000 Fiverr reviews are a core component of long-term remedy stewardship, and that inconsistency across sites or agencies can lead to delays, conflicting interpretation, and uneven protectiveness for sites. 00:30:41.000 --> 00:30:57.000 EPA headquarters uses a structured review method when evaluating draft 5-year review reports, a systematic approach helps ensure that criteria is applied the same way for reports from all regions, as well as reports coming from all different other federal agencies. 00:30:57.000 --> 00:31:13.000 In addition, EPA continually evaluates issues that appear frequently within five reviews throughout regions. This allows for opportunities to clarify guidance, identify trends within common errors, and develop and improve training materials for future five-year reviews 00:31:13.000 --> 00:31:17.000 Next slide, please. 00:31:17.000 --> 00:31:36.000 Cool. So, we're going to talk briefly about state role and responsibilities. So the state role and responsibilities are described in a guidance that will be, linked below. The emphasis is on ongoing partnerships and involvement of the states in the five-year review process, and resolution of questions and concerns at the earliest possible time 00:31:36.000 --> 00:31:51.000 Best practices are to seek and resolve questions and comments informally whenever possible. I think when dealing with the states and looking at how that communication should go, I think it's kind of similar to community involvement standard of early and often 00:31:51.000 --> 00:31:55.000 So including them throughout this entire process. 00:31:55.000 --> 00:31:58.000 Awesome. Next slide. 00:31:58.000 --> 00:32:06.000 Cool. So speaking of community involvement, we're going to be briefly talking about community involvement within federal facility five reviews. 00:32:06.000 --> 00:32:30.000 We'll move to the next slide, which is going to be a short 3-minute video, so stay… hold tight, it might take us just a moment to get this shared, but we will watch this video and touch base after 00:32:30.000 --> 00:32:40.000 While we're queuing out the video, I just want to say, don't forget to utilize the Q&A room to drop any questions that you may have. You don't have to wait and 00:32:40.000 --> 00:33:01.000 Until the end or if there's a certain speaker you're waiting on hearing from, you can still pop in those questions into the Q&A at any time. 00:33:01.000 --> 00:33:08.000 The United States government operates thousands of facilities to promote the security and welfare of American citizens. 00:33:08.000 --> 00:33:20.000 Facilities like military bases and weapons plants handle hazardous materials. Laws require the government to address these hazards to make sure these materials don't endanger human health or the environment. 00:33:20.000 --> 00:33:31.000 Sometimes, the government can clean up contaminants entirely. In other cases, the government leaves contaminants in place, but finds solutions to protect the public from any hazards. 00:33:31.000 --> 00:33:38.000 Congress has mandated that these federal sites must be reviewed every five years to ensure the remedies are working properly. 00:33:38.000 --> 00:33:46.000 The 5-year review documents ongoing monitoring and maintenance activities and evaluates whether on-site contaminants pose a health risk. 00:33:46.000 --> 00:33:50.000 This site used to hold hazardous waste from nearby Andrews Air Force Base 00:33:50.000 --> 00:33:55.000 Today, workers are testing groundwater for contamination left behind. 00:33:55.000 --> 00:34:13.000 The five-year review is a way to step back out of all the details that occur at a hazardous waste cleanup site, and really assess whether the remedy that we've installed is effective at protecting human health and the environment. To conduct a five-year review, Connolly first assesses the different hazards and remedies on the site. 00:34:13.000 --> 00:34:29.000 He analyzes the levels of contaminants. He may conduct a site inspection and interview community members or site workers. He then compiles all this information into the five-year review report. The five-year review identifies the environmental problem 00:34:29.000 --> 00:34:35.000 The decisions that have been made to correct it, and assesses whether or not the remedy is effective. 00:34:35.000 --> 00:34:51.000 Preparing the report is the responsibility of each facility's owner, like the Department of Defense or Department of Energy. Representatives from the Environmental Protection Agency, and state or tribal authorities review the report to provide input and ensure checks and balances in the review process. 00:34:51.000 --> 00:35:04.000 The EPA representative looks at the five-year review, either confirms the lead agency's findings or can issue an independent assessment and a set of findings. 00:35:04.000 --> 00:35:19.000 Lenny Siegel runs a nonprofit that promotes public involvement in federal facilities. Community members have an important role to play at contamination sites for two real reasons. One is, they're the people who are impacted. They drink the water, they breathe the air, they use the land 00:35:19.000 --> 00:35:31.000 It affects their health, their property values. Secondly, they're the people who've been there all along and are going to be there in the future. They know more about these sites often than the regulators and responsible parties. 00:35:31.000 --> 00:35:50.000 Public notices alert community members when a five-year review is getting underway and when the report is released. In some cases, site managers request interviews with community members. You can't wait until after the whole thing's done to give your opinion. You've got to be there when the people from the government are there to ask questions. I think it should be an ongoing dialogue 00:35:50.000 --> 00:36:06.000 Because this is a long-term process, from what I understand. And, you know, we've had Andrew representatives at our association meetings two or three times already. We plan to have them again. The members want to know. They want to know what took place and how successful 00:36:06.000 --> 00:36:13.000 Actually, it's been. When the report is released, site managers may hold public meetings to explain the report's findings. 00:36:13.000 --> 00:36:29.000 Committee members not only need to give input to the process, but they need to know the results. In my community, a five-year review actually led to new cleanup questions and new cleanup technologies. And if you don't know what the reviewers found, you don't know what's going to come next. 00:36:29.000 --> 00:36:53.000 To find out what's next at a site near you, contact your site's project manager. For more information about 5-year reviews, visit the EPA 5-year review website. 00:36:53.000 --> 00:37:02.000 Awesome. Thank you so much for playing that video. I am going to get started on the text for the next slide while we wait for the screen to be pulled back up. 00:37:02.000 --> 00:37:21.000 I think it's really awesome seeing that video, especially as someone that, you know, works out of the headquarters office, who sometimes feels a bit removed from the community and, you know, there's multiple steps between us and the community that we're really helping to work for. So, I particularly enjoy that video and hope that it was meaningful for you guys, too. 00:37:21.000 --> 00:37:41.000 Cool, so back on the slide. So no community involvement activities during the five-year view are mandated in CERCLA or addressed in the NCP. For information on recommended community involvement activities during the five-year review process, see Appendix A of the 2001 Comprehensive Five-Year Review Guidance 00:37:41.000 --> 00:37:55.000 So some of these recommended ways of communicating are to inform the community and other potentially interested parties that a 5-year review will be conducted using the most appropriate communication method or activity for that specific community. 00:37:55.000 --> 00:38:16.000 Informing the community and other potentially interested party that a 5-year review was conducted at the site, or to prepare a brief summary of the results, inform the community that the five-year review report is completed and available for review, post the report on site webpage, and make the report and summary available to the public in the information repository for that specific site. 00:38:16.000 --> 00:38:31.000 A public notice in a local newspaper is the most common way to notify the community that you are preparing to conduct a five-year review at a nearby federal facility. You can also use your facility or installations webpage and local radio or TV stations 00:38:31.000 --> 00:38:47.000 to announce the five-year review. If your site has an active community group, you should notify the public at its next meeting. In May 2015, EPA added language to the NCP to broaden the methods by which EPA can notify the public about certain Superfund activities 00:38:47.000 --> 00:38:57.000 There's also a 2020 Community Involvement Handbook, which we can link below to provide information on community involvement during five-year reviews. 00:38:57.000 --> 00:39:01.000 Okay, next slide, please. 00:39:01.000 --> 00:39:14.000 So the lead agency project manager should work with the site community liaison on a communication strategy and notify the community about the five-year review before it begins and when it finishes. 00:39:14.000 --> 00:39:28.000 Community members may be interviewed as part of the five-year review remedy assessment, conduct community interviews with plenty of lead time, incorporating existing public opinions already provided on remedy performance issues from ongoing public outreach. 00:39:28.000 --> 00:39:34.000 Focus community input on assessing remedy protectiveness, not on reopening the remedy decision. 00:39:34.000 --> 00:39:45.000 Because community members live near these sites, they can offer valuable input about the day-to-day realities at a site, and play an important role for the long-term stewardship of federal facility sites. 00:39:45.000 --> 00:40:00.000 Adjacent property owners or owners of off-site property that may be affected by contamination can be especially helpful to interview. Local government officials may need to be interviewed to determine if institutional controls are implemented properly. 00:40:00.000 --> 00:40:15.000 The five-year review interagency work group developed a set of five-year review community tools to help site managers at federal facilities explain the purpose and findings of a five-year review to surrounding communities. Community meetings are a great platform for sharing the short video and training module. 00:40:15.000 --> 00:40:32.000 Once you have completed the five-year review at that site, a new fact sheet template can help you organize and summarize the most important five-year review findings to share with the community. The fact sheet can also be distributed at community public meetings, and these tools are available publicly on the 00:40:32.000 --> 00:40:39.000 FedPAC, five-year review federal facility cleanups page at epa.gov that has been mentioned a few times now. 00:40:39.000 --> 00:40:49.000 And we'll go on to the next slide, which just shows an example of a fact sheet that could accompany posting about a five-year review using the available online tools. 00:40:49.000 --> 00:41:06.000 So I'll give just a second for y'all to review that, and then I will pass it over to Jen for protectiveness statements. 00:41:06.000 --> 00:41:15.000 Great. Thank you, Haley. Can we move to the next slide? 00:41:15.000 --> 00:41:28.000 All right. So I'm going to go through protectiveness statements and some information that we hope will be useful in helping you determine protectiveness in five-year reviews 00:41:28.000 --> 00:41:31.000 Next slide, please. 00:41:31.000 --> 00:41:48.000 All right, so it's important when conducting a five-year review that you're keeping in mind that the purpose of the five-year review is to determine the protectiveness of the remedy and then also to ensure that the data and information provided in the five-year review document supports the protectiveness statements 00:41:48.000 --> 00:42:13.000 Here we talk about the critical information path, which can be seen as a thread of thought, emphasizing the protectiveness statement, you know, running through the five-year review report. In order to understand if the remedy is protective and functioning as intended, we need to understand what are the objectives of that remedy. And that's where we look to the remedial action objectives for that information 00:42:13.000 --> 00:42:30.000 The remedial action objectives can help you understand how to focus the message and identify what information and data may be needed to support your protectiveness determination 00:42:30.000 --> 00:42:50.000 We'll talk more on this, but the technical assessment is the main meat of the five-year review report where you're going to go through some questions that will help you get to a determination of protectiveness. Five year review report reviewers, such as EPA and state project managers will look to see if the REOs and the technical assessment tell a complete story 00:42:50.000 --> 00:42:57.000 And ensure that they choose recommendations and protectiveness statements are well supported. 00:42:57.000 --> 00:43:14.000 So the REOs being the first step of the critical information path come from the decision document and should already include information such as risk drivers that being the media, the contaminants of concern, the exposure pathways, and the receptors 00:43:14.000 --> 00:43:31.000 The decision document, you know, will also identify the current and reasonably anticipated future land use. The purpose of the action will also be identified. Is the action meant to prevent or minimize 00:43:31.000 --> 00:43:40.000 risks or migration of contaminants or things like that, or to restore or eliminate those. 00:43:40.000 --> 00:43:57.000 You will need to remember to keep these in mind as we move on to the technical evaluation questions, A, B, and C. More information on assessing protectiveness is in the 2001 five-year review guidance, which we've talked about before and will continue mentioning. 00:43:57.000 --> 00:44:02.000 Sorry, can you move to the next slide, please? 00:44:02.000 --> 00:44:14.000 I spoke through this slide without telling you to advance, so apologies to everyone for that. I'll give you a moment to just look at it, but this is what I just spoke through. 00:44:14.000 --> 00:44:17.000 All right, next slide, please. 00:44:17.000 --> 00:44:33.000 All right, the technical assessment. So the five-year review guidance lays out three questions that you're going to ask in the five-year review. Question A asks if the remedy is functioning as intended by site decision documents. It's important to consider 00:44:33.000 --> 00:44:48.000 The remedial action objectives included in those site decision documents when you're thinking about the remedy components and whether they're functioning as intended. You will be using the information you gathered through the five-year review process through 00:44:48.000 --> 00:45:08.000 you know, sampling data, operation and maintenance reports that have been received, any, you know, community interviews or information that you've received from site operators and information from your 5-year review site inspection to answer this question 00:45:08.000 --> 00:45:26.000 Question B asks if the exposure assumptions, toxicity data, cleanup levels, and remedial action objectives used at the time of remedy selection are still valid. You will need to consider whether there have been changes in toxicity, changes in land use or exposure pathways 00:45:26.000 --> 00:45:31.000 Any changes in applicable 00:45:31.000 --> 00:45:39.000 Or relevant and appropriate requirements since the time of your decision document, and you'll use that information to help you answer question B. 00:45:39.000 --> 00:45:55.000 Question C is basically a sweep of the question. Is there anything else that could impact protectiveness that you should consider? So if there's something else happening that you did not consider as part of questionnaire or question B, question C gives you the opportunity to 00:45:55.000 --> 00:46:11.000 Determine whether there are things that impact protectiveness. As going through the technical assessment, you should consider using EPA's regional screening levels to help you understand where you may need to look further into toxicity changes 00:46:11.000 --> 00:46:29.000 Talking with your agency, toxicologist, or other risk assessment points of contact, visiting the federal facility and EPA, other EPA webpages for updates on new and emerging contaminants. Visiting state agency webpages 00:46:29.000 --> 00:46:46.000 To look for any changes in toxicity or cleanup levels involving state regulators. Again, all of these changes need to be viewed in light of the protectiveness determination and the existing REOs to determine whether they will be protective 00:46:46.000 --> 00:47:01.000 A change alone may not impact protectiveness. You must consider whether it may result in unacceptable risk or a new exposure pathway, or something that is not already being addressed. 00:47:01.000 --> 00:47:05.000 All right, next slide, please 00:47:05.000 --> 00:47:18.000 All right, so there are five protectedness determinations identified in EPA guidance that can be identified for a remedy during the five-year review, protective 00:47:18.000 --> 00:47:34.000 Hopefully self-explanatory, the remedy is operating completed and no unacceptable exposures have been identified and no operating remedies are working to continue to meet REO 00:47:34.000 --> 00:47:50.000 In the long term will be protective is a determination for remedies that are under construction. So as I think Jana introduced in the beginning, CERCLA 121 identifies that five-year review 00:47:50.000 --> 00:48:05.000 are triggered by the initiation of the remedial action. Sometimes we are doing five-year reviews on remedies that are under construction. What you're doing for will be protective is you're assessing, you know the portion of the remedy in place at the time 00:48:05.000 --> 00:48:14.000 And assessing whether that remedy will be protective upon completion based on what you know about the implementation of that remedy to date. 00:48:14.000 --> 00:48:27.000 Protective in the short term. In this instance, you have enough information to understand that there are not current unacceptable exposures occurring 00:48:27.000 --> 00:48:36.000 But there are issues and follow up actions that need to be taken to ensure the remedy remains protective in the long term. 00:48:36.000 --> 00:48:48.000 So you need to ensure that those items that need to be addressed to ensure long-term protectiveness are clearly identified in the five-year review 00:48:48.000 --> 00:48:52.000 And in the protectedness determination 00:48:52.000 --> 00:49:09.000 Protectiveness deferred. So these are situations where you do not have enough information to understand whether current unacceptable exposures are occurring and you need to gather additional information to make that determination. 00:49:09.000 --> 00:49:21.000 In the 5-year review, you should clearly lay out what information is missing and what needs to be collected, and also ensure that a timeframe to obtain the necessary information is provided. 00:49:21.000 --> 00:49:26.000 So not protective. This 00:49:26.000 --> 00:49:39.000 is a situation where you have enough information to determine that there are current unacceptable exposures occurring, and there are follow-up actions that need to be taken to achieve protectiveness. 00:49:39.000 --> 00:49:55.000 You need to ensure again that you clearly identify what actions are necessary to achieve protectiveness and ensure that that can be taken within a timely manner, including a timeframe for completion in the five-year review document. 00:49:55.000 --> 00:49:59.000 Next slide, please. 00:49:59.000 --> 00:50:03.000 All right, I will turn it over for a poll, I believe. 00:50:03.000 --> 00:50:14.000 Yes, that's correct. We have a poll and the poll will be launched in probably about 30 seconds, but oh, the poll is launched. So I'll read it out. 00:50:14.000 --> 00:50:32.000 Have you worked on a federal facility 5-year review where the determination was protecting this deferred? What was the cause for making that determination? At any time, you can go ahead and pin in your results. Is it A sampling needed to confirm exposure pathways 00:50:32.000 --> 00:50:39.000 Is it B, not contaminate cleanup levels for issue and need to be need to be evaluation. 00:50:39.000 --> 00:50:44.000 see emergent contaminants need to be investigated. D, other 00:50:44.000 --> 00:50:47.000 So, how are we looking 00:50:47.000 --> 00:50:48.000 Ms. Shelley 00:50:48.000 --> 00:50:54.000 As far as responses coming in 00:50:54.000 --> 00:51:05.000 Okay, so we've got trending right now. We've got 38% emerging contaminants need to be investigated. Number C 00:51:05.000 --> 00:51:08.000 Followed behind by other 00:51:08.000 --> 00:51:10.000 At 35%. 00:51:10.000 --> 00:51:22.000 And sampling needs to be confirmed exposure pathway pathways I didn't talk about 17%. And last is new contaminant cleanup levels were issued and need to be evaluated. So 00:51:22.000 --> 00:51:26.000 Let it go for a few more seconds here 00:51:26.000 --> 00:51:36.000 Countdown 00:51:36.000 --> 00:51:41.000 We've received about 82 responses. 00:51:41.000 --> 00:51:44.000 Share the results. 00:51:44.000 --> 00:51:49.000 And while the results are being sharing 00:51:49.000 --> 00:52:09.000 Can you put in the… this is for the participants, can you put in a couple examples when you say other since we have 37% other, can you drop in the Q&A you know what are those examples of others so the instructors can possibly come back and address that or 00:52:09.000 --> 00:52:15.000 emphasize that to everyone. 00:52:15.000 --> 00:52:25.000 If Jen is good with the poll, we can go ahead and close it. 00:52:25.000 --> 00:52:31.000 Yep, that's great. Thank you. 00:52:31.000 --> 00:52:39.000 Okay, thank you for moving on. I see a couple others coming in. So 00:52:39.000 --> 00:52:52.000 I see some with issues of performance of the remedy or failure of the remedy to perform, and then asbestos as a potential new concern. So yeah, there are, you know 00:52:52.000 --> 00:52:58.000 Things that that come up that could cause us to defer. 00:52:58.000 --> 00:53:10.000 All right. So the next slide choosing a protectiveness determination is built off of the 2001 comprehensive 5-year review guidance 00:53:10.000 --> 00:53:16.000 To help give some 00:53:16.000 --> 00:53:31.000 Guidance of a pathway to making a protectiveness determination and help identify what one may be based on the information you have available to you as you answer the technical assessment questions A, B, and C 00:53:31.000 --> 00:53:48.000 So I will go back to some of our earlier parts of this training talking about this blue box here that says triggerMET. That's talking about the five year trigger. So do you have a circular record of a decision? Have you started a remedial action and is that 00:53:48.000 --> 00:54:03.000 OU that that remedial action is at suitable for UU, UE or not. So if you have not met that trigger and a five-year review is not required, you do not need to make a protectedness determination 00:54:03.000 --> 00:54:13.000 for an OU. However, if you are, as we talked about, follow through on your use your REOs to guide you through the process here. 00:54:13.000 --> 00:54:17.000 If you have a remedy 00:54:17.000 --> 00:54:33.000 that is under construction. You can consider, you know, actually for both of these under construction or completed and operating, you're 1st going to ask yourself the question, do you have enough information about the current unacceptable exposures 00:54:33.000 --> 00:54:51.000 And whether you have enough information to know whether any are occurring or not. If you have enough information about them, you can move on to determining whether you have issues that need to be addressed 00:54:51.000 --> 00:55:04.000 In the long term to ensure REOs are met or whether your remedy may be protective if you do not have issues that need to be addressed in the long term. 00:55:04.000 --> 00:55:09.000 So it's important 00:55:09.000 --> 00:55:19.000 to look through the types of information that you need in order to get yourself to a remedy protectiveness determination. 00:55:19.000 --> 00:55:38.000 For reviewers of five-year reviews, they will ensure that language for the protectiveness statement follows wording in another guidance, yet another guidance by EPA from September 2012, which is called the Clarifying Protectiveness determinations Memo 00:55:38.000 --> 00:55:49.000 That helps guide through some of what I was saying earlier about which protectiveness determinations do you need to identify your follow-up actions and timeframes in. 00:55:49.000 --> 00:56:06.000 It's important to remember that you need to include one protectiveness statement for each OU that is triggered into 5-year views and being assessed in the 5-year review. The 5-year review document, including the technical assessment, needs to provide adequate support for the determination. 00:56:06.000 --> 00:56:23.000 You can do that by answering the three questions and including the backup information in the five-year review itself. You can also, you know cite and link to supporting reports and resources and include appendices as 00:56:23.000 --> 00:56:25.000 appropriate. 00:56:25.000 --> 00:56:30.000 Next slide, please. 00:56:30.000 --> 00:56:37.000 Okay, so I'm not sure if we have a poll for this one or if I'm just going to read it and have you answer in the QA. 00:56:37.000 --> 00:56:43.000 and I check whether we have a poll to launch 00:56:43.000 --> 00:56:44.000 Okay. 00:56:44.000 --> 00:56:45.000 Shan, go ahead and read it in the Q&A. Thank you. 00:56:45.000 --> 00:56:47.000 Okay, sure. 00:56:47.000 --> 00:57:07.000 Alright, so this is an apply your understanding. We're going to ask you what protectiveness determination should be assigned to this OU. So OU 1 is preparing for its second 5-year review. The rod was issued in 2015. The cleanup level for the primary contaminant of concern became more stringent in 202 00:57:07.000 --> 00:57:13.000 Based on the existing data, COC concentrations in soil may exceed the new cleanup level. 00:57:13.000 --> 00:57:22.000 After the REOs were met, sampling and institutional controls were no longer required for this specific remedy. It is unknown if the groundwater is being used. 00:57:22.000 --> 00:57:29.000 The other federal agency concludes that the remedy is still protective 00:57:29.000 --> 00:57:49.000 Okay, there we have a poll launched for you to vote whether you think this situation would be protective determination, protective in the short term, protectiveness deferred or not protective. 00:57:49.000 --> 00:57:57.000 So far, what we have trending is protectiveness deferred at 66%. 00:57:57.000 --> 00:58:04.000 We'll let it go for a few more seconds. 00:58:04.000 --> 00:58:10.000 Let me count down five, four, three 00:58:10.000 --> 00:58:15.000 2 1 00:58:15.000 --> 00:58:18.000 And here's the results. 00:58:18.000 --> 00:58:33.000 Okay, I see protectiveness deferred. Yes. For this example, there is some uncertainty whether the concentrations may exceed the new cleanup level 00:58:33.000 --> 00:58:47.000 So there are some… there is some unknown information that should be gathered and determine if the new cleanup level should be adopted and if the remedy needs to be modified for that. So 00:58:47.000 --> 00:58:51.000 Great. Thank you. 00:58:51.000 --> 00:59:06.000 I did see… I want to make sure I didn't misstate anything, because I saw a question in the Q&A. We do not recommend defaulting to not protective if there are any exposures. I tend to use the term unacceptable exposures 00:59:06.000 --> 00:59:23.000 And I'm sorry if that's my shorthand that I should have explained. Unacceptable exposures would be exposures that were identified through the risk assessment and the cleanup level selected in the record of decision that are exposures that we would consider to pose a protectiveness risk 00:59:23.000 --> 00:59:28.000 Based on the decision documents 00:59:28.000 --> 00:59:36.000 Okay, so the next slide I am going to talk a little bit about 00:59:36.000 --> 00:59:56.000 what are… if you're reviewing a 5-year review, what are items a reviewer should look for in a protectiveness statement? This is, again, tied to some of Haley's slides about the common, comments, and some important things to reinforce, for you all on five-year reviews 00:59:56.000 --> 01:00:06.000 When you're reviewing, you should look to see that there's one protectiveness statement per OU that is required in the five-year review 01:00:06.000 --> 01:00:18.000 You should look to see whether the protectiveness determination matches the text in the document. So as you read the document, and then get to the protectiveness determination 01:00:18.000 --> 01:00:24.000 Was the information in there leading to that determination. 01:00:24.000 --> 01:00:43.000 You should be looking for whether the technical assessment sufficiently supports the protectiveness statement. So is there information in the technical assessment leading to the determination chosen? Are issues identified, but the determination is protectiveness that could be 01:00:43.000 --> 01:00:58.000 Could mean that additional support is needed or that the protectiveness determination has not been supported adequately in a different one should be chosen. 01:00:58.000 --> 01:01:14.000 Reviewers should also be looking for is the protectiveness statement for each OU. And if applicable site-wide consistent with the issues and recommendations. Again, so if issues and recommendations are identified that could impact current or future protectiveness 01:01:14.000 --> 01:01:18.000 is the appropriate determination selected that follows that 01:01:18.000 --> 01:01:39.000 If the protectiveness statement considers REOs, for example, have you evaluated and shown support for progress towards achieving RAOs, or were issues identified that need to be corrected in order for RAOs to be achieved or maint 01:01:39.000 --> 01:01:46.000 Does the protectiveness follow the standard format provided in the 2001 guidance and the 2012 policy memorandum? 01:01:46.000 --> 01:01:57.000 And then, if a site-wide protectiveness statement is needed, that it is included. Site-wide protectiveness statements are included when a 01:01:57.000 --> 01:02:06.000 CITE has achieved the site-wide milestone of construction complete, not OU, so that would be the entire, 01:02:06.000 --> 01:02:16.000 CERCLA Superfund site has achieved across all OU's construction complete and achieved that site-wide milestone. 01:02:16.000 --> 01:02:20.000 Okay, next slide. 01:02:20.000 --> 01:02:28.000 All right, so this one I'm going to talk through anatomy of a protectiveness statement. So some of this 01:02:28.000 --> 01:02:32.000 Is described in the 2012 clarifying 01:02:32.000 --> 01:02:50.000 memo, and that can be helpful. This is an example of a protectiveness determination of protective in the short term. So the 2012 memo will give you ideas of how to structure a protectiveness statement for all five of the protectiveness determinations 01:02:50.000 --> 01:03:06.000 To go through this one, you know, there are several parts to the protectiveness determination and here they are separated by color on this slide for you to view. So in the first one, you're identifying the OU that you're discussing 01:03:06.000 --> 01:03:16.000 And then giving the protectiveness determination. So for this one, the remedy currently protects human health and the environment. That is a protective in the short-term statement. 01:03:16.000 --> 01:03:32.000 You are identifying what activities justify and support that statement. In this case, because land use controls to prevent groundwater use are in place and groundwater treatment will continue until concentrations throughout the plume are below the standard slash MCL 01:03:32.000 --> 01:03:45.000 And then for the issues that may impact long-term protectiveness, this identifies to be protective in the long term, the IC boundary should be expanded. 01:03:45.000 --> 01:03:57.000 So the last sentence there is identifying what must happen for the remedy to maintain protectiveness in the future. 01:03:57.000 --> 01:04:01.000 Next slide, please. 01:04:01.000 --> 01:04:11.000 All right. So this slide gives some examples of remedies considered not protective in these cases, follow-up action is needed to ensure protectiveness is achieved 01:04:11.000 --> 01:04:27.000 Again, more information can be found in the five-year review guidances, but a couple of examples, immediate threat is present, so there are complete exposure pathways where unacceptable risks are not being controlled could be occurring 01:04:27.000 --> 01:04:32.000 Migration of contaminants is uncontrolled and poses an unacceptable risk 01:04:32.000 --> 01:04:45.000 There is potential or actual exposure clearly present or evidence of exposure. So ICs are not in place, and exposure is occurring because of that. 01:04:45.000 --> 01:04:48.000 or other, you know, there's 01:04:48.000 --> 01:04:56.000 data showing that vapor intrusion is occurring into areas where there is a complete exposure pathway 01:04:56.000 --> 01:05:07.000 And then remedy cannot meet a new cleanup level, and the previous cleanup level is outside the risk range. This may depend on site-specific considerations. 01:05:07.000 --> 01:05:20.000 of whether there are actual exposures occurring or not in that scenario, actual unacceptable exposures, sorry, to that level outside the risk range. 01:05:20.000 --> 01:05:26.000 Okay, next slide, please 01:05:26.000 --> 01:05:28.000 Okay, thank you. 01:05:28.000 --> 01:05:35.000 Follow-up actions based on the 5-year review document 01:05:35.000 --> 01:05:51.000 So if a five-year review determination is anything but protective or will be protective, then issues and recommendations to address protectiveness should be identified 01:05:51.000 --> 01:06:08.000 if the remedy determines that changes to the selected remedy may be needed, that does need to be identified in a decision document. It could be through an ESD or a rod amendment. You'd have to do, you know, further evaluation to consider what those are 01:06:08.000 --> 01:06:15.000 For federal facilities only, EPA considers five-year review reports to be standalone 01:06:15.000 --> 01:06:23.000 primary documents are part of another related primary document that should have a schedule within the framework of the federal facilities agreement 01:06:23.000 --> 01:06:35.000 That agreement should include site-specific 5-year view requirements such as provisions for reviews, public participation, and addressing or resolving issues. 01:06:35.000 --> 01:06:46.000 If the remedy is not protective, again, then it may be necessary to take additional actions and that could include changes to the selected remedy. 01:06:46.000 --> 01:06:51.000 Next slide, please 01:06:51.000 --> 01:07:05.000 Okay. So EPA monitors progress being made on issues and recommendations between five-year reviews and updates the Superfund tracking system, the Superfund enterprise Management System known as CEMS periodically 01:07:05.000 --> 01:07:22.000 In that system, there are status updates used to identify issues and recommendations, and those are identified here. A recommendation could still be under discussion in that we are determining how to implement it 01:07:22.000 --> 01:07:36.000 It may be ongoing that we've begun implementation but not completed yet. It's possible that what was recommended was considered and not implemented because information became available to us that meant that it was not needed 01:07:36.000 --> 01:07:41.000 completed, which means we've been able to address that issue 01:07:41.000 --> 01:07:58.000 And address in the next five-year review, which is an option only for the last update to be input when the next 5-year review is completed and information on that issue and recommendation has been identified in that 5-year review document. 01:07:58.000 --> 01:08:01.000 Next slide. 01:08:01.000 --> 01:08:06.000 All right, I am turning over to Haley. So thank you all. 01:08:06.000 --> 01:08:13.000 Hello. So the next few slides are going to talk about independent findings. Next slide, please. 01:08:13.000 --> 01:08:25.000 As I had mentioned earlier, independent findings are something that are specific to the federal facility five-year review process and not something that you'll find within the private side of five-year reviews 01:08:25.000 --> 01:08:43.000 So above shows steps throughout the concurrence process and independent finding occurs when EPA needs to issue non-concurrence with the other federal agencies protectiveness determination or when procedural requirements are not met. On the next slide, we'll look at some common reasons why these findings occur. 01:08:43.000 --> 01:08:54.000 After the concurrence or non-concurrence letter is signed by the EPA region, the EPA RPM has five days to submit the data to the EPA tracking system 01:08:54.000 --> 01:09:08.000 Progress on implementing the issues and recommendations identified in the report are updated and discussed between EPA headquarters and the regions. The EPA RPM is responsible for updating the issues and recommendations before they are due. 01:09:08.000 --> 01:09:14.000 The EPA RPM will also revisit this information with the lead agency between five-year reviews. 01:09:14.000 --> 01:09:32.000 We have the annual report to Congress, which was mentioned earlier in slides, which includes the protectiveness statements for each site that was due that fiscal year. EPA will also report on whether the agency made an independent assessment of the protectiveness of the remedy in that report to Congress. 01:09:32.000 --> 01:09:34.000 Next slide, please. 01:09:34.000 --> 01:09:44.000 Cool. So this slide shows some common reasons that EPA may issue one of those independent finding of protectiveness during the five-year review process at federal facilities. 01:09:44.000 --> 01:09:54.000 As mentioned in the previous slide, an independent finding occurs when EPA cannot concur with the other federal agencies' protectiveness determination. 01:09:54.000 --> 01:10:09.000 An independent finding may be required when no report is submitted by the other federal agency, even if a report is late, EPA must still make a protectiveness determination by the statutory due date, which triggers the need for an independent assessment. 01:10:09.000 --> 01:10:28.000 This also includes when EPA does not receive the five review draft in time to conduct a meaningful review and resolve the comments, even if work is underway, EPA cannot wait beyond the legally required timeline and must issue its own determination based on the best available information. 01:10:28.000 --> 01:10:42.000 And this review process, as we've talked about earlier, takes a while, so it's really important to get these drafts moving as early as possible to allow time for comments and even meetings if those are necessary to kind of talk through some of the comments that are made. 01:10:42.000 --> 01:10:59.000 In addition, EPA may issue an independent finding when it does not agree with the protectiveness determination made by the other federal agency. This can happen for several reasons, including if the report does not address emerging contaminants that may influence the protectiveness of the remedy. 01:10:59.000 --> 01:11:08.000 This can also be if a new exposure pathway has been identified that was not evaluated in the draft or if land use controls are either not in place or not maintained. 01:11:08.000 --> 01:11:24.000 Independent findings are generally avoidable when reports are timely, complete, and aligned with guidance that is provided by EPA. When issues arise, EPA may… must act to ensure that protectiveness is evaluated accurately and on schedule. 01:11:24.000 --> 01:11:27.000 All right, next slide. 01:11:27.000 --> 01:11:42.000 So this information is a little bit outdated, but we actually just went through this process again within the past couple months of, kind of determining what this looks like now for us. So this chart is a 01:11:42.000 --> 01:12:00.000 Federal facility review charts showing five-year reviews that were completed for each year, including independent assessments issued, as well as late reports. So, we actually, in the most recent data poll that we've done for this, it actually is looking closer to 50% of these reports 01:12:00.000 --> 01:12:18.000 Resulting in independent findings in more recent years than 2020. So common issues that we are hearing right now on the EPA side of things, include lack of funding and staff capacity at the other federal agency level to complete reviews on the necessary schedule to avoid independent findings. 01:12:18.000 --> 01:12:33.000 So as much as possible, we work to avoid these because it does place an extra burden within the EPA RPM side of things if the report is not completed on time or done according to guidance on the other federal agency side of things. 01:12:33.000 --> 01:12:37.000 Awesome. Next slide, please 01:12:37.000 --> 01:12:40.000 And this one is going to be a poll, I believe passing off to Shelly for this 01:12:40.000 --> 01:12:55.000 Yes, so for this group poll, the question is, have you worked on a FedFact FYR where EPA and the other federal agency disagreed on the protectiveness statement? How was this resolved? 01:12:55.000 --> 01:13:05.000 And just type your answer in there 01:13:05.000 --> 01:13:16.000 So far, we've received six responses 01:13:16.000 --> 01:13:23.000 We're up to 20 01:13:23.000 --> 01:13:32.000 I'm going to let this one go a little bit longer. We're now up to 30. 01:13:32.000 --> 01:13:34.000 And we're now 01:13:34.000 --> 01:13:43.000 40 seconds. This poll has been open. We're up to 38 01:13:43.000 --> 01:13:47.000 Let me let it go just a few more 01:13:47.000 --> 01:13:55.000 50 responses received so far 01:13:55.000 --> 01:14:04.000 Okay, we're at a minute now, 51 responses received. 01:14:04.000 --> 01:14:07.000 I'm gonna go a little bit longer 01:14:07.000 --> 01:14:12.000 I'm gonna go 01:14:12.000 --> 01:14:13.000 3 01:14:13.000 --> 01:14:17.000 2 1. We're going to end the poll. 01:14:17.000 --> 01:14:26.000 We received 59 responses, it looks like 01:14:26.000 --> 01:14:45.000 Hopefully you can see the responses. 01:14:45.000 --> 01:14:49.000 Yeah, I'm not seeing any of the answers here, so 01:14:49.000 --> 01:15:03.000 Not sure, I'm gonna go ahead and stop sharing. I don't know if you want to go ahead and continue. 01:15:03.000 --> 01:15:07.000 Oh, okay. We'll keep going. All right. 01:15:07.000 --> 01:15:08.000 Let me go back here 01:15:08.000 --> 01:15:12.000 Yes, I do believe you are still on the next four slides are further polls, Shelly. So I will keep passing it over to you. Yes, absolutely. Thank you. 01:15:12.000 --> 01:15:29.000 Okay, so the next slide. I'm going to go ahead and start it and I'll just read it as it's going. Scenario number one, as an EPA RPM, you received and reviewed a draft FYIR report. After reviewing the document and providing the document for headquarters FFRO review 01:15:29.000 --> 01:15:37.000 You are able to concur with the protectiveness statements in the draft report. However, the report will not, by final 01:15:37.000 --> 01:15:48.000 by the statutory due date. What are the follow up actions for the EPA rpm? Is it a write a concurrence letter agreeing with the federal agency protectiveness determination 01:15:48.000 --> 01:16:04.000 B, identify issues, recommendations and actions that will be tracked in SEMS. C, submit letter and draft report to CEMS, or D, nothing EPA cannot proceed until the report is finalized. 01:16:04.000 --> 01:16:06.000 Okay, so far 01:16:06.000 --> 01:16:09.000 What's trending is 01:16:09.000 --> 01:16:16.000 Write a concurrence number letter A, write a concurrence letter with the federal agency. We've got 41% of that now. 01:16:16.000 --> 01:16:19.000 47, 50%. 01:16:19.000 --> 01:16:28.000 That is definitely trending, followed by 23% identify issues, recommendations, and actions that will be treated as Sims. 01:16:28.000 --> 01:16:30.000 And I'm going to let this go for another 01:16:30.000 --> 01:16:35.000 We've received 61 responses 01:16:35.000 --> 01:16:36.000 Let's go a little bit 01:16:36.000 --> 01:16:38.000 7 01:16:38.000 --> 01:16:40.000 All right. 01:16:40.000 --> 01:16:44.000 Going to go ahead and end in five 01:16:44.000 --> 01:16:48.000 3 01:16:48.000 --> 01:16:55.000 One 01:16:55.000 --> 01:17:02.000 We received a right of concurrence letter agreeing with the federal agency protectiveness determination at 53%. 01:17:02.000 --> 01:17:07.000 followed by identify issues, recommendations, and actions that will be tracked in Sims. 01:17:07.000 --> 01:17:17.000 And third, submit letter and draft report to SEMS and D nothing was EPA cannot proceed until the report is finalized. 01:17:17.000 --> 01:17:21.000 Okay, let me go back here 01:17:21.000 --> 01:17:24.000 All right, scenario number two. 01:17:24.000 --> 01:17:29.000 This is slide 53, right? To keep track of which poll I'm on here. 01:17:29.000 --> 01:17:30.000 That's correct. 01:17:30.000 --> 01:17:35.000 Yeah. Okay, 53. 01:17:35.000 --> 01:17:54.000 Okay, for scenario number 2. As an RPM, you received and reviewed a draft Fyr report. After reviewing the document and providing the document for headquarters FFRR review, you are able to conclude that EPA does not, in capitals, agree with the protectiveness statements in the draft report 01:17:54.000 --> 01:18:10.000 Also, the report will not be final by the statutory due date. What are the follow-up actions for the EPA RPM? Question. Is it a make an independent finding of the protectiveness by the statutory due date means the letter to the federal agency 01:18:10.000 --> 01:18:24.000 Or is it B, share the draft letter with the federal agency for approval? Is it C, submit letter and draft report to SEMS, or D send the draft letter to FFRRO for review before signature? 01:18:24.000 --> 01:18:29.000 Okay, so far we've received 37 responses 01:18:29.000 --> 01:18:45.000 And overwhelmingly, we've got almost 80% make an independent finding of the protectiveness by the statutory due date letter to the federal agency is definitely trending. We've got 0 for submit letter and draft report to Sims 0% 01:18:45.000 --> 01:18:51.000 1% share the draft letter with the federal agency for approval. So 01:18:51.000 --> 01:18:57.000 Item A. And item D are the two that are trending. 01:18:57.000 --> 01:19:02.000 So I'm gonna this we've got 83 responses so far. So I'm gonna go 5 01:19:02.000 --> 01:19:05.000 4… 3 01:19:05.000 --> 01:19:07.000 Two, one 01:19:07.000 --> 01:19:11.000 ending the poll. 01:19:11.000 --> 01:19:19.000 And so what we received here is 84% at Macon Independent finding of the protectiveness by the statutory due date 01:19:19.000 --> 01:19:37.000 followed by 14% send the draft letter to FFR for review before signature. And then third share the draft letter with the Federal agency for approval, and no one responded to submit letter and draft report to Sims 01:19:37.000 --> 01:19:40.000 All right, so now we're on to the third poll. 01:19:40.000 --> 01:19:44.000 Okay, so scenario number three 01:19:44.000 --> 01:19:46.000 I'm gonna go ahead and launch that. 01:19:46.000 --> 01:19:55.000 As an EPA RPM, you received a draft FYI report from the federal agency, but do not have sufficient time to conduct a review. 01:19:55.000 --> 01:20:09.000 The report will not be final by the statutory due date. What are the follow-up actions for the EPA RPM? Is it a make an independent finding, deferring a protectiveness determination by the statutory due date 01:20:09.000 --> 01:20:21.000 Or is it B, share the draft letter with the federal agency for approval? C, submit letter and draft report to SIMS, or is it D, send the draft letter to FFRO for review? 01:20:21.000 --> 01:20:26.000 Okay, trending right now we've got 37 responses. 01:20:26.000 --> 01:20:30.000 78% have responded with 01:20:30.000 --> 01:20:39.000 Make an independent, finding, deferring, or protectiveness determination by the statutory due date. And overwhelmingly, that seems to be the response 01:20:39.000 --> 01:20:45.000 Followed by send the draft letter to FFRRL review if that 9% of that. 01:20:45.000 --> 01:20:47.000 For that answer 01:20:47.000 --> 01:20:49.000 So 01:20:49.000 --> 01:20:54.000 So far, we've received 75 responses 01:20:54.000 --> 01:20:56.000 5 01:20:56.000 --> 01:20:57.000 4 01:20:57.000 --> 01:20:59.000 Three 01:20:59.000 --> 01:21:04.000 Two, one, ending the poll 01:21:04.000 --> 01:21:16.000 Okay, so overwhelmingly 81%, 64 responses received for making independent finding deferring a protected misdetermination by the statutory due date, followed by 01:21:16.000 --> 01:21:22.000 send the draft letter to FFRO for review. Just item D 01:21:22.000 --> 01:21:26.000 Okay, stop sharing 01:21:26.000 --> 01:21:31.000 All right, on to the next poll for scenario number four. 01:21:31.000 --> 01:21:37.000 So the FYR report has been finalized by the statutory due date. 01:21:37.000 --> 01:21:52.000 In later discussions, the federal agency expresses it is not willing to implement the recommendation in the five-year report. What are the potential follow-up actions for the EPA RPM? Is it A, there is nothing EPA can do 01:21:52.000 --> 01:22:02.000 Or B, send a letter to federal agency outlining the issues and recommendations. Seek plan of action and schedule from the federal agency. Or is it C 01:22:02.000 --> 01:22:16.000 If progress is not made in a reasonable time, consider sending a letter requiring the actions as additional work under the Federal Facilities Agreement, subject to dispute resolution, or is it D, EPA will do the actions themselves. 01:22:16.000 --> 01:22:21.000 All right. So far we've received 33 responses 01:22:21.000 --> 01:22:30.000 And trending is at 63% is send a letter to federal agency outlining the issues. So that's item B. 01:22:30.000 --> 01:22:32.000 And 01:22:32.000 --> 01:22:38.000 Following that is item C, if progress is not made in a reasonable time. 01:22:38.000 --> 01:22:44.000 and there are no responses for item A or D. 01:22:44.000 --> 01:22:48.000 We've received 84 responses so far 01:22:48.000 --> 01:22:51.000 85. I'm going to count down 01:22:51.000 --> 01:22:54.000 5… 4… 01:22:54.000 --> 01:22:58.000 Three, two, one 01:22:58.000 --> 01:23:01.000 Okay. 01:23:01.000 --> 01:23:11.000 So we received an overwhelming response to send a letter for item B. 55 responses at 64%. 01:23:11.000 --> 01:23:16.000 Followed by item C, if progress is not made. 01:23:16.000 --> 01:23:29.000 That's at 35% for 30 responses and we've received no responses to item D and one response for there's nothing EPA can do. 01:23:29.000 --> 01:23:30.000 Okay. 01:23:30.000 --> 01:23:37.000 Back to you, team 01:23:37.000 --> 01:23:40.000 Okay 01:23:40.000 --> 01:23:47.000 So now we're going to talk about addressing emerging contaminants. 01:23:47.000 --> 01:23:52.000 Next slide, please. 01:23:52.000 --> 01:23:59.000 So from the EPA five-year review guide institute in 200 01:23:59.000 --> 01:24:07.000 On page 49, what it says is new site conditions such as the discovery of new contaminants 01:24:07.000 --> 01:24:13.000 can also impact the RAOs and revenue protectiveness 01:24:13.000 --> 01:24:17.000 So under question B listed on the slide here 01:24:17.000 --> 01:24:28.000 You should evaluate whether the RAOs in the rod are sufficiently comprehensive to cover any new or changed conditions at the site. 01:24:28.000 --> 01:24:39.000 If a new condition at the site is not covered by the RAOs, you should recommend further investigation in the 5-year review report 01:24:39.000 --> 01:24:44.000 To determine whether additional response actions are needed. 01:24:44.000 --> 01:24:53.000 So again, looking at this slide, are there new contaminants or new sources that have been identified? 01:24:53.000 --> 01:24:56.000 And then 01:24:56.000 --> 01:25:07.000 You know, then you can prove they the lead agency then can provide a broader overview of how the emergent contaminant is going to be considered. 01:25:07.000 --> 01:25:23.000 Also, were the emerging contaminants captured under that initial question, question B, existing guidance suggests that this is most appropriate question as it addresses exposure assumptions and detection of new chemicals 01:25:23.000 --> 01:25:27.000 The third item or question you want to ask 01:25:27.000 --> 01:25:31.000 Was it captured under the issues and recommendations 01:25:31.000 --> 01:25:33.000 In the five-year review report 01:25:33.000 --> 01:25:38.000 If there's any follow-on sampling included, then it needs to be captured here 01:25:38.000 --> 01:25:43.000 And four, does the emergent contaminant affect the protectiveness 01:25:43.000 --> 01:25:48.000 Unresolved issues could mean short-term protectiveness 01:25:48.000 --> 01:25:57.000 is not sufficient or that there's insufficient information to make a determination 01:25:57.000 --> 01:26:08.000 And so, you know, we also had a question in the Q&A about this issue. 01:26:08.000 --> 01:26:16.000 If the five-year report does not sufficiently capture this information or make a protectiveness statement 01:26:16.000 --> 01:26:28.000 that EPA determines is not appropriate, then in that case, you would issue your own independent protectiveness evaluation statement in that case 01:26:28.000 --> 01:26:41.000 So ideally, the lead agency would identify and provide information about such emergent contaminants or conditions at the site that have changed 01:26:41.000 --> 01:26:53.000 And that that would be captured appropriately. But if not, then yes, then EPA then makes their own independent assessment and issues that in a letter. 01:26:53.000 --> 01:27:01.000 So I hope that answers the question posed in the Q&A. I did include a written response 01:27:01.000 --> 01:27:18.000 If there's any other questions, please feel free to put them in the Q&A. But that wraps up our material instruction and I will pass it back over to Hayley for some just general additional information. 01:27:18.000 --> 01:27:34.000 All right, hello. I wanted to share some updated contact information for our five-year review coordinators here at the Federal Facility Program within used to be FIFRO and now we're kind of spread out throughout a bunch of different offices within OSIM 01:27:34.000 --> 01:27:53.000 So if you are part of one of these regions listed, your immediate contacts will be these regional coordinators listed here, as well as myself, who is the 5-year review coordinator for the Federal Facility Program, and Jill Apachin, who is my backup coordinator for the Federal Facility Program. 01:27:53.000 --> 01:28:10.000 So please reach out to any of us, and if there's something that we can't answer, we absolutely know where to point you to throughout the people on our different teams. So we are here to help, and we are excited to, receive drafts from you or respond back to any questions that you have. 01:28:10.000 --> 01:28:13.000 All right, next slide. 01:28:13.000 --> 01:28:26.000 In addition, my contact is listed here, as well as Jen Edwards, who is also on this call, as she is also a five-year review coordinator within CIB, which is a cleanup implementation branch 01:28:26.000 --> 01:28:28.000 All right, next slide, please 01:28:28.000 --> 01:28:35.000 Cool, I'm going to hand it back to our moderators to go over any outstanding Q&A questions. Thank you. 01:28:35.000 --> 01:28:51.000 Okay, so if we don't get to all the questions that are in the Q&A, we will probably have somebody reach out to answer those questions if for some reason we cannot close them all out. There is an individual who had their hand up. I'm going to attempt to give you 01:28:51.000 --> 01:28:56.000 Voice talk. If not, if you could type your 01:28:56.000 --> 01:29:08.000 comment, and it's Danielle. I don't know, Danielle, if you're available. I'm going to turn the mic on for you. I'm not sure this is going to work, because I haven't done this before, but let's give it a try. 01:29:08.000 --> 01:29:11.000 I don't know if you want to go ahead and speak 01:29:11.000 --> 01:29:13.000 In the meantime 01:29:13.000 --> 01:29:23.000 So there were some comments about, I mean, there was some discussion early on at the beginning of this seminar. If you intend to receive 01:29:23.000 --> 01:29:34.000 credit for this class using a participation certificate. You will need to go back to where you registered for the class at cluein at epa.gov 01:29:34.000 --> 01:29:49.000 And you can go there on the registration page for this course, for this webinar, and underneath the feedback section, that's what you want to do is fill the feedback out, and then you need to make sure you use the same email address that you registered with 01:29:49.000 --> 01:30:06.000 And then it will… the system will send you… receive an automated participation certificate that will come back to you via email. So that's how you get participation certificate for today's event. So you need to use that link. And the link is actually, I'll read it to you. It's https. 01:30:06.000 --> 01:30:15.000 Forwards, two forward slashes, www.cleu-n.org 01:30:15.000 --> 01:30:25.000 If I can move my screen over here, I can see it forward slash CONF/TIO forward slash FF Academy one 01:30:25.000 --> 01:30:42.000 And that's the actual link, but you can just go visit the page and travel to it that way. Additionally, if you're not a member of the tech direct, you can receive notices that come out once a month at the beginning of every other of every month about additional webinars 01:30:42.000 --> 01:30:56.000 Have been brought where you can visit the webpage and find them out there. So you can subscribe to the tech direct and that will give you automated email information about that. Gonna want to say thank you to the instructors and participants for attending today's webinar. 01:30:56.000 --> 01:30:58.000 I think we did 01:30:58.000 --> 01:31:01.000 Some great information sharing here 01:31:01.000 --> 01:31:04.000 Yeah. 01:31:04.000 --> 01:31:05.000 Go ahead. 01:31:05.000 --> 01:31:07.000 Shelly, I could share a couple of questions. We've got four questions. 01:31:07.000 --> 01:31:16.000 First question is, how should or could the fact sheet be distributed? This was an earlier question, probably about an hour ago or so 01:31:16.000 --> 01:31:32.000 Yeah, I can take this one. So there's a few different things that can be done for this. One is providing that fact sheet online. A lot of Superfund sites on the NPL will have some kind of information repository page just for that site 01:31:32.000 --> 01:31:50.000 So you can include it within there. If there's any kind of community group for that site, you can have physical copies provided there, or if there is some kind of, you know, well-visited community spot, you could put some of the fact sheets there or hang them up somewhere that is 01:31:50.000 --> 01:32:05.000 Readily visible for people. A lot of different options, I feel like this is a great question to discuss with the community involvement team for that specific site, as they will know how information is best given to the people at that specific community. 01:32:05.000 --> 01:32:07.000 Thank you. 01:32:07.000 --> 01:32:08.000 Thank you, Haley. Oh, yeah, go ahead. Oh 01:32:08.000 --> 01:32:27.000 Yeah, I was gonna, oh, sorry. I was just going to echo what Haley said with the community involvement team. There may also be a community involvement plan for the site where the community involvement team has worked closely with the community to identify the best ways to communicate with them and where. And so that can be a good resource to look to as well. 01:32:27.000 --> 01:32:39.000 Thank you. Thank you, Jen and Haley. Second question, does EPA still need to produce an independent finding if the responsible party is going to be just one to two months? 01:32:39.000 --> 01:32:49.000 Yes, Craig, I answered, you had two questions there and I answered the other one. Unfortunately, yes, the independent finding currently is still required if the 01:32:49.000 --> 01:33:05.000 Dropped report is going to be submitted late, especially if that is just the draft report as, you know, the comment period and everything going back and forth between EPA and the other federal agency takes kind of an extended period of time, and you can't really cut 01:33:05.000 --> 01:33:23.000 short those comment periods, and if the report is late. So likely, even if the draft report is only submitted one or two months late, that will be pushed out even further because of everything else that has to happen throughout that process. So yes, no matter how late it is, there has to be either a final support 01:33:23.000 --> 01:33:31.000 support submitted or an independent finding provided by that statutory due date for that site. 01:33:31.000 --> 01:33:36.000 Thank you. And then there was a question about the poll questions. 01:33:36.000 --> 01:33:48.000 that were shared earlier, were the correct answers. I know that there was obviously trending a certain way, but just wanted to find out if they were the correct answers would be shared. 01:33:48.000 --> 01:34:03.000 I don't know the answer to that. I believe it comes out with the recording because this event has been recorded and so you can listen to the responses to the poll questions that way. I don't believe there is something that goes back out to the participants beyond that 01:34:03.000 --> 01:34:11.000 As far as specifically providing that data, but it will be a record within the recorded. 01:34:11.000 --> 01:34:12.000 Session 01:34:12.000 --> 01:34:14.000 Great, thank you. 01:34:14.000 --> 01:34:19.000 And then finally, is PFAS generally short-term protective 01:34:19.000 --> 01:34:29.000 Without a complete investigation picture 01:34:29.000 --> 01:34:33.000 Not sure anybody might know that answer. 01:34:33.000 --> 01:34:35.000 Yeah, I was going to say 01:34:35.000 --> 01:34:36.000 Oh, sorry. 01:34:36.000 --> 01:34:37.000 Go ahead, Jen. Go ahead. 01:34:37.000 --> 01:34:52.000 Oh, can you say, I don't know who wants to take this, but I think there is not a general recommendation. I think it is a site specific answer and I think you would need to understand the situation at the site 01:34:52.000 --> 01:35:06.000 You know what the potential for unacceptable exposures is and consider that when determining whether short-term protective or protectiveness deferred is appropriate, or if you have 01:35:06.000 --> 01:35:13.000 data to show an unacceptable exposure is occurring, whether it drives to not protective. I think 01:35:13.000 --> 01:35:24.000 You could have various scenarios, just depending on the facts on the ground. I don't know, Jana, Jana or Haley, if you agree with that or want to add to it 01:35:24.000 --> 01:35:25.000 Jen, I thought 01:35:25.000 --> 01:35:27.000 Yeah, I agree. Yep, go ahead, Jana. 01:35:27.000 --> 01:35:45.000 Okay. I was going to say, yeah, that's probably the best answer, probably even better than what I could have stated, but I will just make one quick comment. A site that I'm working on now, we have some PFAS data, but it's not a complete picture of what's available. And so we don't have a complete 01:35:45.000 --> 01:36:00.000 Risk assessment to determine to what extent it's causing a problem warranting some kind of action. So in our case, the specific site, we've just issued an independent finding of protectiveness 01:36:00.000 --> 01:36:02.000 Deferred 01:36:02.000 --> 01:36:10.000 But it could be very site-specific as Jen said 01:36:10.000 --> 01:36:11.000 Thank you. 01:36:11.000 --> 01:36:14.000 Yeah, Haley, do you have anything to add or 01:36:14.000 --> 01:36:32.000 Nothing additional, just echoing what was already said. This is very site-specific, so feel free to reach out to the federal facility team at headquarters and we can definitely help answer this question for that specific site. It's hard to answer this, I think, without all of the background for that site specifically 01:36:32.000 --> 01:36:37.000 Great, great. Hey, just turning over back to you, Shelly. There's no more questions in the Q&A. 01:36:37.000 --> 01:36:49.000 No more questions in the Q&A. So thank you everyone. Also, if you want to email the team, our email address is at the Cluan site, but it's clue-in@epa.gov. 01:36:49.000 --> 01:37:07.000 If there's any follow-up as a result of this webinar today, you can email us questions there. But the gentleman that had his hand up, if you want to send us the questions we didn't get to you directly, we don't know what issue you wanted to share with us, but feel free to reach out to us on that email address 01:37:07.000 --> 01:37:08.000 Oh, okay. 01:37:08.000 --> 01:37:16.000 We do have another question here. What tends to happen community relations wise when protectiveness, deferred or independent 01:37:16.000 --> 01:37:24.000 There's DET issued by EPA. 01:37:24.000 --> 01:37:31.000 I think that's independent determination, but it's spelled. But that's the question. 01:37:31.000 --> 01:37:47.000 Yeah, I feel like this is unfortunately another one of those questions that's a little bit hard to answer generally, because I think this could look different depending on the site. Specifically looking at sometimes independent findings are made because that review 01:37:47.000 --> 01:38:08.000 is late, or, you know, is going through the comment period at headquarters. And I think often within that realm, it's not necessarily notified to the community, that, hey, this is going to be a little bit late. And it really depends on how active that community is within the five-year review process, because I know that some sites and some communities are more 01:38:08.000 --> 01:38:19.000 hands-off when it comes to that. So I would definitely say that this is kind of site-specific, depending on what else is going on around the site, and how I guess 01:38:19.000 --> 01:38:32.000 how high of a thing this is within that community's space. So, another question to reach out specifically if you have a thing, at a specific site. Thank you. 01:38:32.000 --> 01:38:35.000 Yes, thank you, Haley. All right, Shelly. Yeah. I think we're good. 01:38:35.000 --> 01:38:54.000 Okay, again, want to say thank you for everyone's participation. Again, don't forget, if you want your participation certificate, you need to go visit the registration page where the webinars are and fill out the feedback for today's session. Just remember, you need to do that with the same email address that you registered with to receive automatically. 01:38:54.000 --> 01:39:05.000 If you have any questions? Let us know. You can email us directly at clue hyphen in at epi.gov and have a fabulous rest of your day. Thank you, everyone. 01:39:05.000 --> 01:39:07.000 I'm going to stop 01:39:07.000 --> 01:39:08.000 Thank you. 01:39:08.000 --> 01:39:18.000 Thank you, everyone