Page 6 of the PAERAB's Summer 2008 TAPP Contractor Newsletter

The Army apparently does not accept the New Jersey Surface Water Quality Criteria ( NJSWQC ) “as threshold requirements that each remedial alternative must meet, as required by the NCP.” The USEPA contends that risk is comprised of multiple exposure pathways; in this case, both groundwater and surface water contribute to the risk and therefore, surface water ARARs must be taken in to account. The USEPA concludes that “because the risks posed by various exposure pathways should be added to determine total site risk, and because chemical-specific standards, such as the NJSWQC, may determine whether remedial action is warranted, EPA Region [sic] requests that the Dispute Resolution Committee direct the Army to determine whether each alternative complies with the NJSWQC.”

Text Box: The primary designated use of Class IIA groundwater is potable water. Therefore, the EPA expects that the contaminated groundwater underlying Picatinny will be rendered potable in a reasonable time frame.”

Text Box: As stated in the USEPA June 27, 2008 position paper, the disputed issues are as follows: If a Class IIA aquifer is contaminated, is the reasonably foreseeable use of the groundwater relevant in determining whether action, and evaluation of ARARs, is necessary? In other words, if the reasonably foreseeable use is by an industrial research worker and the risk to such user is acceptable, would remedial action be necessary, and would ARARs (such as MCLs) need to be evaluated? The USEPA cites the basis for their position. The groundwater classification comes from the National Contingency Plan (NCP) which utilizes the USEPA’s 1986 Classification Guidelines wherein Class IIA is defined as currently used drinking water source. The USEPA states that the “groundwater under Picatinny is recognized as Class IIA groundwater.

Text Box: use (i.e., satisfy ARARs such as MCLs) because there is no unacceptable risk. However, the designated use of Class IIA groundwater is potable water. If intake of such water must be restricted in order for risks to be acceptable, then it is not being protected to levels appropriate to its use as a drinking water source and does not satisfy the requirement in Section 12(a)(2) of CERCLA that the Army comply with EPA guidelines, rules and regulations.” If there are no unacceptable human health or ecological risks identified with Mid-Valley surface water, are there chemical-specific surface water ARARs? The dispute is centered on the Army’s statement that “no unacceptable human health or ecological risk has been identified associated with exposure to Mid-Valley surface water. Therefore, there are no chemical-specific surface water ARARs associated with the Mid-Valley area.”

THANK YOU FOR YOUR VOTE OF CONFIDENCE

During the May 29, 2008 public meeting of the PAERAB the assembled members of that august body expressed their approval of the services of the TAPP Contractor on their

behalf, especially her efforts in the preparation of the quarterly newsletter. The board reaffirmed its confidence in the TAPP Contractor by unanimously voting to approve

and retain the services of the TAPP Contractor : Ms. Barbara Dolce. The creator of this newsletter wishes to avail herself of this opportunity to express her sincere

appreciation to the PAERAB. Thank you for your gratifying vote of confidence in my service to the RAB of providing unbiased technical advice to the PAERAB. Thank you!

The concluding statement includes a passage that succinctly summarizes the nature of the disagreement: “The Army appears to hold out hope that in a limited exposure scenario (i.e., industrial/commercial) a contaminated Class IIA aquifer would not have to be restored to its beneficial