Text Box:  The last round of sparring between the USEPA and the Army regarding the Mid-Valley groundwater operable unit may have been resolved successfully after several meetings between the parties. Language was agreed to that would satisfy the objectives of both the USEPA and the Army and it is expected to be incorporated into the final revised edition of the Mid-Valley groundwater Feasibility Study (FS) to be prepared by Arcadis the Army’s contractor. The USEPA received the revised FS on 12/12/2008 and it responded with comments about surface water contamination on 2/27/2009. An Army / Arcadis’ response  is anticipated. It will be provided in a future newsletter as and when it becomes available. 
Following on the heels of the Army’s dispute with the USEPA is one concerning the State of New Jersey’s recently promulgated soil standards. Apparently the USEPA and the NJDEP both maintain that New Jersey’s recently promulgated soil standards should be referred to as ARARs (applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements). The USEPA, as the lead agency, contends that these NJDEP soil standards should now be referred to as ARARs in pending feasibility studies : such as the subject FS for Sites 18 and 149. The USEPA laid out the basis for the dispute in its October 16, 2008 comments on the FS for Sites 18 and 149

POINTS OF INTEREST:   

· A technical meeting convened by ARCADIS was held on December 15, 2008 with members of the NJDEP and USEPA present along with representatives of Picatinny Arsenal and ARCADIS.

· The last restoration advisory board (RAB) meeting was held on October 23, 2008. It was preceded by a field trip to sites of interest on Picatinny Arsenal.  Following the field trip which culminated in a trip to the top of the Armaments Research tower, the meeting took place at Bucky’s.

· The next RAB meeting will be held on March 26th from 6:30 to 8:30 pm at the Hilton Garden Inn in Rockaway, New Jersey.  Members of the public are invited to attend.

 

MID VALLEY / DOJ

2

LAKE SHORE

3

NEW STANDARDS

3

ROUND 2

4

SKEET RANGE LEAD

4

CRP / TRAINING

4

SUBMUNITIONS

5

FY’09 RODS/AREA D

5

AREA B / PERCHLORATE

6

PICA 001 FS

8

USEPA CHIEF

10

Agreements

11

Wesley ackerson

12

Text Box: The Picatinny Arsenal Environmental Restoration Advisory Board’s 
TAPP Contractor presents

Winter 2009

Volume 7, issue    1

Text Box: Environmental Happenings
At Picatinny Arsenal
Text Box: IN THE FIELD…..
Text Box: Recent field activities for August 2008 through January 2009 included the following:
Former DRMO Yard – Bldg. 34 (PICA 072):  Stakeout of excavation boundaries; brush clearing, 

Text Box: soil sampling, and land surveying.  MEC avoidance throughout intrusive activities. (August)
Area B – Phipps and Horney Road (PICA 205):  Brush clearing for well  installation; well installation

DISPUTE  OVER  NJ  SOIL  STANDARDS

Text Box: Editorial Reviewers
David Forti, Michael Glaab, Courtenay Huff
Technical Advisors
Ted Gabel, William Roach,   Gregory Zalaskus

along with MEC avoidance;

Image of Boxing Gloves Next Page PAERAB Home Text Box: wherein the USEPA stated that it is no longer valid to refer to the General Geis letter for soils with risks in between the range of  10-6 and 10-4. This letter was an attempt to resolve previous disputes over certain soil standards that had not yet been legally promulgated. Gen. Geis’ letter was based on an  internal army memorandum generated by General Van Antwerp. Presumably New Jersey’s promulgation of relevant soil standards has impacted the legal purview and relevance of this memorandum. 
Text Box: At the October 15, 2008 technical meeting held shortly after receipt by the Army of the USEPA’s comments it was decided by the regulators and
Text Box: the Army that they would proceed in the same manner as they had with the Mid-Valley dispute – attempting first to resolve the matter informally and barring resolution at that level, formally elevating the dispute up to the next level.  
The contentious issue of New Jersey soil standards has come up time and again. The USEPA and the NJDEP utilize different risk values to determine when action is required. The USEPA requires a risk assessment and