What’s old is new again…...
|
|
the following general comment: “The FS must be modified to reflect EPA’s letter from Walter Mugdan to Irene Kropp, NJDEP Assistant Commissioner, dated May 12, 2010 on the New Jersey Soil Remediation Standards (NJSRSs). Per the referenced correspondence, EPA does not recognize the soil cleanup standards based on the inhalation criterion. However, as pointed out in a June 17, 2010 e-mail from Bill Roach to Ted Gabel the inhalation pathway must still be considered when developing soil cleanup standards.” July 22, 2010: Picatinny Arsenal responded to comments on the 25 Site FS. Picatinny Arsenal stated the following: “Basically it [response to comments] includes the following general positions so all the Picatinny sites can move forward: 1 – Screening of Soil Data. In the comment response we propose to continue the use of all of the NJDEP SRS criteria as Levels of Concern to be used in screening data. I think the USEPA should be amenable to this position as long as we don’t call the NJDEP inhalation numbers ARARs at any point. 2 – Development of Site Cleanup Levels. In the comment responses we propose to not change the approach we have for the development of Site Cleanup Levels. In this approach we use all of the NJDEP SRS. However, in light of the USEPA comments we will make it clear that the NJDEP numbers based on dermal/ingestion are ARAR and the numbers based on inhalation are TBC. 3 – Compliance with Chemical-Specific ARARs. We will state in the compliance with ARARs section that the numbers based on dermal/ingestion area ARAR and that we comply with them through a combination of existing engineering controls and land use controls. This is only a wording change and does not change any of the proposed remedial alternatives.” |
|
As is to be expected, USEPA policies and guidance do change and evolve over time. For example, as is related in the RENEWED FEDERAL FACILITY CLEANUP HEARINGS article on page 14 of this newsletter, the USEPA had recently initiated a potentially significant review of its policies and guidance. Of perhaps more immediate consequence to the arsenal’s cleanup effort are the LUC and ARAR issues discussed during the September 2, 2010 technical meeting. September 2, 2010: Mr. Bill Roach of the USEPA issued an e-mail on February 23, 2011 in which he clarified certain statements attributed to himself on page 4 of the minutes of the September 2, 2010 technical meeting. These statements concerned a letter from Mr. Walter Mugdan (Director of the Emergency and Remedial Response Division at EPA region 2) to Ms. Irene Kropp ( Assistant Commissioner of the NJDEP’s Site Remediation Program ) regarding ARARs. To be specific, Mr. Roach noted that the letter’s date is actually May 12, 2010. Referring to the letter’s contents Mr. Roach explained “...that, in fact, the 12 May 2010 letter from Walter Mugdan to Irene Kropp is still valid.” This particular letter provides vital clarification of USEPA guidance regarding ARARs and it is available for examination on the PAERAB’s website.
Also included on the same page of the minutes is the following: “Document approvals (as recently as August 2010) are being revaluated [sic] which includes the signing of the Group 1 ROD.” The minutes explain that the reason why documents may be reevaluated is due to a disagreement concerning the application of ARARs and LUCs: : “EPA stated that in a recent telephone conversation between upper |
|
management, that NJDEP maintained that once risk was exceeded (greater than 10-4) at one single operable unit at Picatinny, then ARARs would need to be addressed facility wide. Furthermore, EPA HQs has stated that LUCs (other than some type of installed cover) do not address chemical –specific ARARs.” Apparently the reason for a concession that SRS were considered ARARs was a result of negotiations. According to the meeting minutes at the meeting “it was agreed that USEPA needs to providea final position on ARARs and how to apply LUCs for there to be any further progress at these sites.” Presumably with the intention of signifying that a resolution is being attempted the meeting minutes relate that: “Mr. Roach briefed the group that USEPA and NJDEP upper management are scheduling discussions. USEPA and the Army (USAEC) are also trying to schedule a meeting to determine the application of Land Use Controls.” October 7, 2010: Letter from Ms. Angela Carpenter of the USEPA to Mr. James Daniel of the Army. Ms. Carpenter clarifies the USEPA’s position on the use of LUCs as remedy components at Picatinny Arsenal. Ms. Carpenter also requested a copy of the document requested by the NJDEP – “a list of all the Picatinny sites where the SRS have been exceeded and that have proposed remedies of LUCs and/or ‘maintenance of existing engineering controls’ including a discussion of the existing ECs and why the Army considers these to be a protective remedy for each area under consideration.” Ms. Carpenter first notes that CERCLA ”requires that on-site remedial actions must attain Federal and more |
