child-care facilities, and playgrounds that result in unacceptable risk.”

EPA requested language:

“Prevent the development and use of the property for residential housing, elementary and secondary schools, child-care facilities, and playgrounds unless it can be shown that the property is suitable for unlimited exposure and unrestricted use.”’

The same issue came up in regard to the Feasibility Study (FS) for Sites 109, 125, 142, 144, 146, and PICA-203.  The USEPA made the following comment in regard to a statement in the executive summary of the FS:

‘It is stated in the first sentence:  “Based on the review of the sample data, available human health risk assessments (HHRAs) and ecological risk assessments (ERAs), no action is required

at Sites 125, 144, and PICA-203.”  To be suitable for no action, EPA requires that a particular operable unit (OU) or site, in the case of Picatinny, be suitable for unlimited exposure and unrestricted use.  To be suitable for no further action for soils, one of the following criteria must be met:

a)  A risk assessment based on a residential land use scenario must be performed that documents that risk levels are acceptable for unrestricted use.  In addition, if NJ residential soil clean up criteria are chosen as clean up standards, then contaminant levels at the site must conform to them.

b) Alternatively, a site is suitable for unrestricted use if all site contaminants are less than EPA Region 9 residential screening levels.

If neither of these two criteria have not[sic] been satisfied, then land use controls (LUCs)

are required.’

Further discussion regarding the application and wording for land use controls (LUCs) apparently took place at the February 19, 2008 meeting attended only by the USEPA, the NJDEP, Picatinny Arsenal, the Army Environmental Command, the Army Corps of Engineers, and Arcadis.  The RAB was not invited to observe the meeting.  Information regarding the meeting is in the form of draft meeting minutes dated February 27, 2008 that were distributed by Mr. Ted Gabel, Project Manager for Environmental Restoration and PAERAB DoD Co-chairman at Picatinny Arsenal, after the meeting.

On February 19, 2008 representatives of the USEPA, NJDEP, Army Environmental Command, Army Corps of Engineers, Picatinny Arsenal, Shaw Environmental, and Arcadis met to discuss a number of critical issues affecting the cleanup of Picatinny Arsenal.  The draft meeting minutes

dated February 27, 2008 listed the following topics:

1. Regulatory Drivers for Groundwater

2. Approach to MNA

3. Surface Water ARARs

4. Cleanup Standards for RDX and Perchlorate

5. Land Use Controls and No Further Action Determinations.

A RAB representative was not invited to attend the meeting either as an observer or as a participant.  Discussion at the meeting appeared to result in a compromise on certain points whereas other issues appear to be headed to dispute resolution.

SOME STAKEHOLDERS MEET RECENTLY