IN THE FIELD            (CONTINUED FROM PAGE 1)

Area E – Near Buildings 70, 80, and 95:  Measurement of water levels and installation of PDBs (August).

 

note: (PDBs are a means of

 

On July 20, 2009 the Army submitted a response to some of the USEPA’s comments concerning PICA 001. Apparently the Biological Technical Assistance Group’s (BTAG) issues were addressed separately. Provided below is one of those comments. This comment  reflects an issue that has repeatedly arisen for other sites.

 

EPA Comment [item 5 of the Army’s tabulated response]: ‘The second sentence states:  “The sites where only Alternative SL-1/SD-1 [no action] and SL-2/SD-2 [land use controls] were considered included nine sites where naturally occurring arsenic drove risk within the 10^-4 to 10^-6 range for current and reasonably anticipated future land use (military/industrial) and……”  EPA does not agree with this approach referenced in the above quote. If the site is suitable for unrestricted use and unlimited exposure, then no further action, including LUCs, is required.  However, if the site is unsuitable for unrestricted use and unlimited exposure, then LUCs are required. The NCP cautions against the use of institutional controls, which are a component of LUCs, as the sole remedy:  “The use of institutional controls shall not substitute for active response measures (e.g., treatment and/or containment of source material, restoration of ground waters to their beneficial uses) as the sole remedy unless such active measures are determined

 

 

 

not to be practicable, based on the balancing of trade-offs among alternatives that is conducted during the selection of remedy” (40 CFR Section 300.430(a)(1)(iii)(D)).  Therefore, EPA requests that an active response measure be assessed for all operable units that will require the implementation of LUCs.’

 

Army Response:

 

 “Because the only constituent driving a risk at these sites (and a risk within the acceptable range for the current and reasonably anticipated future use of military/industrial) was arsenic at or below background concentrations, evaluation of a meaningful active remedial action is not possible.   There are no suitable actions to take to remediate a constituent at its naturally occurring level. 

 

It is also noted that the Land Use Control actions proposed do not address industrial risk, which, as noted, is within generally accepted levels, but to prevent changes in land-use to residential usage that may then lead to unacceptable risks or hazards.  Remedial action is not required for the current use of these sites.”

 

Some of the other comments were successfully resolved with the resolution of the Mid-Valley dispute. Another issue at stake is that related to ecological issues. It appears that the USEPA may have submitted its approvalon

 

 

September 9, 2009. However, that approval does not refer to the disputed

BTAG issue.

 

Michael Glaab, the RAB’s Community Co-chmn. offers the following comment:

 

“Active response measures which directly address environmental concerns by immediately treating and/or removing contaminants are usually preferable. In this particular region, Arsenic does unfortunately appear to occur naturally at relatively high levels. It is therefore understandable that this fact is taken into consideration when a site is evaluated. It should be calculated into the decision-making process. However, thousands of individuals work daily on the Arsenal’s premises and numerous individuals actually reside on Picatinny Arsenal — including the families of personnel based at the Arsenal. Indeed, a not insignificant amount of modern residential housing has recently been constructed at Picatinny. Accordingly, our concern must not only be for our environment and for the health, safety and welfare of those communities neighboring the Arsenal. We are also obligated to consider the health, safety and welfare of all of those individuals who daily work and/or reside there — whether they are civilian DoD employees, contractors, military persoonel and/or their families. If an active response is not practicable then hopefully LUCs and the base’s own land management plan will implement appropriate protective safeguards — especially in residential areas on base.” 

 

 LUCs FS for PICA 001