|
stringent State ARARs.” Furthermore she goes on to state the USEPA position on LUCs and their relation to ECs and ICs as follows: “LUCs are generally considered to be composed of both engineering controls and institutional controls. Engineering controls (ECs) can be proposed for wastes that pose relatively low risk or where treatment is impracticable. Institutional controls (ICs) are non-engineered instruments such as administrative and/or legal controls that minimize the potential for human exposure to contamination by limiting land or resource use and are generally used in conjunction with, rather than in lieu of, engineering measures such as waste treatment or containment. Where protectiveness depends on reducing exposure, ICs are a response action under CERCLA and where a record of decision (ROD) only requires the implementation of ICs, it is considered to be a ‘limited action,’ not a ‘no action’ ROD. Furthermore, the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan cautions against the use of ICs as the sole remedy unless active response measures are determined to be impracticable. In preparing risk assessments for the site, the Army has generally maintained that the reasonably anticipated future land use for the Picatinny site will remain the same as the current use, military/industrial. As such, an IC to preclude a change in future land use is necessary since these risk assessments generally do not assess an unlimited use, unrestricted exposure scenario. Since a response action, in this case an IC is required, ARARs must be met.” According to Mr. Roach’s February 23, 2011 e-mail the summary requested from Picatinny Arsenal by the regulators had been submitted in December of 2010. We have been informed that if the USEPA is in agreement with what is provided by Picatinny Arsenal then the matter |
|
will not be elevated to dispute. However, the issue of NJDEP concurrence is uncertain. Resolution of the matter will allow cleanup to progress. However, without resolution the remediation of perhaps as many as 140 sites may be stalled. Unfortunately on numerous occasions disagreements of this nature (and all different variations on the definition of risk, utilization of LUCs, and the applicability of State criteria and State standards) have slowed down or halted progress on cleanup efforts. For example, the following past issues of this newsletter have addressed just such obstacles: · “Over and Over Again…” (Winter 2006) · “No Risk, No ARARs, No Remedy” (Fall 2006), · “Unacceptable Risk, Unlimited Exposure and Unrestricted Use” (Spring 2008), · “SRS vs. risk-Based Approach…Again” (Summer 2009), · “LUCs FS for PICA 001” (Winter 2009). |
What’s old is new again…...
|
