Page 7 of the PAERAB's Winter 2010 TAPP Contractor Newsletter

Superfund sites in the state). Discussions with the state over these issues is not likely to take place until next month with the holidays and a new governor taking office. EPA can not agree with the 25 Site FS as currently written as stipulated in the meeting minutes until EPA completes its assessment of the new soil standards and discusses the concerns listed above with DEP management.”

Text Box: exceedance of the SRS. This was a subject of discussion at the December 8, 2009 technical meeting between representatives of the USEPA, NJDEP, Picatinny Arsenal and the Army. The main purpose of the meeting was to resolve comments on the draft PICA 001 25 Site FS. The participants discussed how to relate in the FS the NJ Soil Remediation Standards recognition issue and what its final impact will be on the FS. Minutes of the meeting noted the following: “The Army has agreed to recognize these standards as ARARs for sites within the generally acceptable CERCLA risk range providing there are no substantive changes to the site remedies as a result. Remedies will generally be institutional controls and engineering controls as necessary.”

Text Box: For many years prior to the recent legal promulgation of NJDEP Soil Remediation Standards (SRS) the concentration values used as guidelines by the NJDEP for certain SRS were a source of contention. The Army and/or its contractors deemed SRS which had not been properly promulgated as legally unenforceable. Finally in June of 2008 the State of New Jersey did promulgate the standards. Now the point of debate is whether the USEPA will recognize those NJDEP SRS as ARARs. If the USEPA will not recognize these SRS then this will lend credence to the Army’s contention that where there is no risk (an exceedance of 10-4), there is no need for action nor for ARARs. Another major issue, given acceptance of the SRS as ARARs, is what an acceptable remedy will be for sites in which there is a minor

Text Box: While the parties present at the meeting reached a tentative agreement on acceptable language, a subsequent communication dated December 17, 2009 from the USEPA clarified the current official agency position as follows: “…..EPA is currently reviewing the NJ soil remediation standards to determine their applicability as ARARs so we can not at this time agree with the proposed ARAR language that was forwarded to this office. Other issues of concern that need to be further discussed with the state are the extensive use of existing vegetative covers as engineering controls, 6 inch soil covers (constructed), averaging of contaminants, and hot-spot lead removals to the 5X cleanup standard (ie, are these methods consistently applied at other

EXTENSIVE USEPA COMMENTS ON 600 AREA DATA REPORT…..AND THEN APPROVAL

The Army received extensive and far-reaching comments from the USEPA about the 600 Area Data Report and Feasibility Study (FS) that was submitted to regulators in February 2009.

The USEPA’s comments were dated September 8, 2009. These comments related primarily to the USEPA’s concern about the adequacy of site characterization and a perceived absence of sufficient information to determine

cleanup time frames. Three factors were noted as follows:

· Inadequate characterization of the AOC 1 source area.

· Insufficient characterization of the extent of contamination in the saturated zone.

· An uncertain and unreasonable estimate of the cleanup time frame.

The USEPA noted that “…These factors in conjunction with the observed contaminant plume stability suggest that sufficient

information may not be available to facilitate an adequate evaluation of potential remedial alternatives.”

The Army responded to the comments on October 27, 2009. The FS was revised by the Army to include additional discussion of source characterization and the methodology for determination of the cleanup time frame. By December 2, 2009 the Army was in receipt of correspondence from the USEPA indicating that the Army’s responses to its comments were

satisfactory with the sole exception of an Army response to a general comment regarding bedrock groundwater flow.

This issue was seemingly resolved with the Army’s agreement to a USEPA request for periodic evaluation of groundwater data so that the need for a contingent remedy can be evaluated.