Highlights of the FINAL PROPOSED PLAN  for Sites 61 and 104 (PICA 102) by  Michael Glaab 

The public hearing conducted on April 17, 2008 concerning contaminants at sites 61 and 104 at Picatinny Arsenal   was intended to both inform the general public  about the selection of environmental remediation actions for these sites and to also serve as a venue for the public to submit comments during the official public comment period.

The firm of Arcadis was contracted to prepare the following report to provide pertinent environmental remediation information regarding these sites to those responsible for the selection of appropriate remedial actions : 

Final Proposed Plan — Sites 61 and 104 (PICA 102) , U.S. Army Garrison Picatinny Arsenal, New Jersey — April 2008.

This report provides quantified values and analyses. It describes the physical sites, their contaminants, the determination of remedial action objectives (RAOs), several possible alternative remediation options, the criteria for evaluating these options, and the conclusions of its authors.

The report was provided to the RAB and it is available to the general public. Brief, but useful and informative, excerpts of it are provided verbatim in this article.

For example, the following definition of RAOs is provided on page 11 of the proposed plan :

“Remedial Action Objectives (RAOs) are based on human health and environmental factors, which are considered in the formulation and development of response actions. Such objectives are developed based on the criteria outlined in Section 300.430(e)(2) of the NCP and Section 121 of SARA”.

According to the report  Sites 61 and 104 are in Area F. The region comprising Picatinny Arsenal has been subdivided into 16 separate areas on the basis of their potential for environmental contamination. These consist of areas A through P. Area A includes sites having the greatest potential for contamination and Area P includes those with the least potential for contamination.

Both sites are located immediately to the east of Green Pond Brook (GPB).  Site 61 encloses approximately 3 acres that include Buildings 171 and 176. Site 104 is south of Site 61 and it occupies an area of approximately 0.96 acres. Site 104 includes former Building 161 and Building 162.

The final proposed plan depicts the extent of contamination in the following statement on  page 3 :      

 “Impacts have been identified in surface and subsurface soil, surface water, sediment, and groundwater, potentially due to historical releases and past disposal practices that occurred at both sites”.

According to page 3  “...chemical contamination at Sites 61 and 104 (PICA 102) mainly has been detected in close proximity to site buildings, former disposal areas, and within and along the banks of GPB and Robinson Run”.

The following physical descriptions of Green Pond Brook (GPB) and

CONTINUED ON P. 10

existing ECs (engineering controls)  at Site 104 and 61; sediment – alternative D-2: land use controls.  Michael Glaab, the RAB community co-chair, was in attendance at the meeting.  He commented that he found the removal effort “encouraging.”  In addition he requested that two weeks notice be provided for public meetings.  In the case of the public  meeting for Site 61/104 the notice was not the normal two weeks. Mr. Glaab elaborates with the following: “...personally, I and probably most - if not all - of the community RAB representatives

would prefer to have all of the contaminants either removed expeditiously from the Arsenal or  rendered harmless onsite. However,  the excavation of some of the more contaminated soil is reassuring. It seems to be a reasonable and conservative premise that emphasis be placed on the removal of that soil which is the most seriously contaminated and  that soil which is contaminated with contaminants that readily migrate via water. Therefore soil contaminated with water soluble contaminants that is also in close proximity to water  should be prioritized for removal.

measures as phytoremediation will be implemented - where, when and if practicable - to reduce the remaining onsite contaminants. Where fast and effective remediation actions are currently cost prohibitive the application of  less effective—but low cost - remediation measures in conjunction with  LUCs is preferable to merely permitting contaminants to remain onsite until nature slowly renders those contaminants relatively harmless.  Low cost remediation measures can  supplement typical LUCs  until and if  cost effective remediation measures become available”.    

In addition, once contaminated soil has been excavated it will hopefully be physically removed  from the Arsenal for proper disposal elsewhere. However, if excavated contaminated soil is instead retained on the Arsenal then it will be incumbent on the U.S. Army, the NJDEP and the USEPA to assure that this soil will be carefully disposed to prevent contaminant migration. Institutional and/or engineering land use controls (LUCs) will presumably be applied to the remaining contaminated sections of Sites 61 and 104. Hopefully where contaminants remain such relatively low cost remediation

PUBLIC HEARING FOR PROPOSED PLAN  (cont’d)