US Army Garrison Picatinny Arsenal Agenda for 3 March 2011 Picatinny Arsenal Restoration Advisory Board • Attendance, Introductions & Correspondence • Old Business • TAPP Contract and Financial Report • MidValley Groundwater Investigation and Results • A Primer on Vapor Intrusion • Installation Restoration Program and Military Munitions Response Program Update-in-a-Minute (if time allows) • A short primer on the Picatinny Army Compatible User Buffer Proposal • Synopsis and Next Meeting 1
Transcript
US Army Garrison
Picatinny Arsenal
Agenda for 3 March 2011
Picatinny Arsenal
Restoration Advisory Board
• Attendance, Introductions & Correspondence • Old Business • TAPP Contract and Financial Report • MidValley Groundwater Investigation and Results• A Primer on Vapor Intrusion• Installation Restoration Program and Military
Munitions Response Program Update-in-a-Minute (if time allows)
• A short primer on the Picatinny Army Compatible User Buffer Proposal
• Synopsis and Next Meeting
1
US Army Garrison
Picatinny Arsenal
TAPP UPDATE
FINANCIAL REPORT AS OF
March 3, 2011
Need RAB vote to concur that TAPP contract continues to be required and in compliance.
2
Contract Value $20,671Spent to Date $ 5,574Balance on Contract $15,097
US Army Garrison
Picatinny Arsenal
Update-in-a-Minute
Installation Restoration Program
March 3, 2011 Presentation to the
Picatinny Arsenal
Restoration Advisory Board
3
US Army Garrison
Picatinny Arsenal
Status of Investigations
• Most Remedial Investigations considered completed
• Continued Groundwater and Surface Water Monitoring:- Area D Plume Groundwater- Area E Groundwater- Post Farm Groundwater- Area B Groundwater- Green Pond and Bear Swamp Brook- Area C or Southern Boundary Groundwater - Group 1, Group 3 and Site 78 (Building 91)
• MidValley Groundwater wells and re-evaluation
• Remedial Investigation Workplan for Skeet Range approved by NJDEP, EPA reviewing response; field work in early spring.
• 600 Investigation Workplan approved, goresorbers results discussed with EPA and NJDEP. Vapor Intrusion Study and trenching to find source is next.
• Samples of Lake Picatinny sediment analyzed in order to assess Site 40 removal proposal.
4
US Army Garrison
Picatinny Arsenal
Status of Feasibility Studies
• Considered Approved– 600 Hill Groundwater FS once approved will require an addendum to include data from new investigation– 25 Site LUC FS conditionally approved in September by EPA; 25 Table submitted to determine protectiveness of remedy– PICA 111 revised and approved – Shaw 25 Site FS approved
• Submitted– Lake FS: Comments from EPA and NJDEP being addressed, samples taken– Non-Lakes FS: Comments from EPA– 5 Site FS: Comments from EPA– 45 Site LUC FS: Comments from EPA– MidValley Groundwater to be revised based on results of investigations
5
US Army Garrison
Picatinny Arsenal
The September 2nd
Controversy
• October 2 letter from Angela Carpenter to Jim Daniels of AEC:
- Risk assessments generally do not assess or pass an unlimited use, unrestricted exposure scenario. Since a response action, in this case an IC is required, ARARs must be met.
- ICs alone are not sufficient to meet a numerical remediation standard. At a minimum, an appropriate EC is necessary, and would be in conjunction with an IC.
- Requests a list of all the Picatinny sites where the SRS have been exceeded; proposed remedies of LUCs and/ or "maintenance of existing engineering controls“ why the Army considers these to be a protective remedy.
6
US Army Garrison
Picatinny Arsenal
The September 2nd
Controversy
• Army provides 25 Site Table on 3 December that includes LUCs at all sites.
- Focused lead hot-spot removals at Site 35 (NC Processing Area); and Site 199 (Former Pistol Range)
- Focused soil removal of elevated RDX at Site 162 (Buildings 1070,1071, 1071C)
- Focused action to address elevated 2,4-DNT at Site 16 (GCL)
- Focused action to address elevated mercury at Site 108 (Flare Island); GW LTM for lead at Sites 32 (Storage Tanks); Site147 (Poach House);and Site150 (Propellant Plant).
- GW LTM for TCE and radium at Site 50 (Still House)
Army position remains that CERCLA is a risk based program and ARAR analysis triggered by unacceptable risk for the current and reasonably anticipated future use. NJDEP and EPA to meet on March 14th.
Issue needs to be resolved by both parties
to meet deadlines. Work on 150 sites is stopped.
7
US Army Garrison
Picatinny Arsenal
Status of Proposed Plans
• Submitted or soon to be:
- 25 Site Proposed Plan: On hold based on resolving newest EPA position
- 600 Hill GW Proposed Plan: Awaiting results of investigation
- PICA 111 Proposed Plan: Responses to EPA comments submitted
8
US Army Garrison
Picatinny Arsenal
Status of Records of Decision
• Signed RODs, Implemented:
- Site 20/24 considered complete except LUC monitoring- Post Farm: Action is considered complete except for monitoring- Green Pond/ Bear Swamp Brook: Only monitoring remains- Area D Groundwater: Permeable Reactive Barrier monitoring continues- Site 25/26: ICs and vegetative cover considered complete- Site 180 ROD: Complete except LTM- Area E Groundwater: Consider complete except for the MNA monitoring - 13 Sites Institutional ROD PICA 20- Approved by EPA, LUC ongoing- Site 61/104 considered complete- Area B Groundwater: Considered Remedy in Place- Site 31/101 DRMO Yard:- Southern Boundary/Area C - Burning Ground: Impermeable Cover and Reuse - must wait for incinerator - Group 1 GW and soils-Group 3 GW and surface water
• FY 2011 RODs To Be Submitted:
- PICA 13 : EPA providedcomments on revision based on results of Vapor Instrusion Study. Technical comments addressed at Feb 22nd meeting.
9
US Army Garrison
Picatinny Arsenal
Remedial Action Reports
Remedial Action Reports: • Post Farm Report • Site 180 Report• Site 25/26 Report• Area B GW• Area E GW Report • Area D GW Report• Green Pond Brook/Bear Swamp Brook• Site 104/61 Report• Area C GW Interim Report• Former DRMO Yard Remedial Action• Group 1 and Group 3 being submitted March
10
US Army Garrison
Picatinny Arsenal
Programmatic Developments
• 2010 Installation Action Plan final and on web:https://aero.apgea.army.mil/pIAP-
–2011 being drafted• 2-year Workplan for FY 10 approved by NJDEP (Greg) and Army (Ted) – Semi-Annual Report submitted by Picatinny• Compliance sites now covered by ER-A
– Covered by Defense and NJ MOA and EPA agreement– Must follow CERCLA not NJDEP Regs– Covered in IAP
• Addresses Munitions and Explosives of Concern at eligible sites (non-operating ranges) on and off Picatinny
• The Program
• Site Inspection Report approved by Army and regulators in April 2008
• Definition of the area of the operating ranges may change at Picatinny
• Ongoing Actions
• Ongoing Construction Support for projects within eligible areas
• 3rd Mt Hope Removal Action is now re-continued and will be completed in a few weeks. Safety Concerns held up project.
•Public Notice for Decision Document based on outcome of EE/CA for continued construction support and more education of public
• Remedial Investigations for all Sites contracted out by the Corps to Weston; Technical Planning Meeting occurred in November with Stakeholders including EPA, NJDEP, Rockaway Twp and RAB Co-Chair, Tilcon RAB Representative
12
US Army Garrison
Picatinny Arsenal
Picatinny’s MMRP
Remedial Investigation
Timeframe :
• November 10th, 2010: Technical Project Planning Meeting: WESTON and Army presented the scope and nature of the Remedial Investigation. Attendees included: EPA, NJDEP and contractor
• January 2011: Final minutes approved • April timeframe: RI Workplan most likely submitted
in Springtime. Draft to Army this weekNOTE
RI will not include two sites on base that are now operational
13
US Army Garrison
Picatinny Arsenal
Map of Picatinny’s
MMRP Sites
14
US Army Garrison
Picatinny Arsenal
Encroachment – The Working
Definition
Encroachment is defined as incompatible urban (and suburban) development surrounding military installations that affects the ability of the military to train realistically.
More than 40 percent of installations report encroachment issues.
15
US Army Garrison
Picatinny Arsenal
Why the ACUB at Picatinny
• The execution of the proposed ACUB program will ensure the harmonious co-existence of expanding military missions at Picatinny Arsenal and natural resources conservation activities inside and outside the fenceline.
• Regional population increases, noise concerns from the testing missions and the need to maintain, and in some cases increase quantity-distance safety arcs for testing and storage capabilities, requires a proactive encroachment buffering program.
• Preserve the ecological integrity of the surrounding landscape so that the habitat inside the fence line is maintained as part of a much larger network of protected lands that provide critical habitat for threatened and endangered species. Picatinny Arsenal can thereby avoid becoming an isolated enclave of biodiversity.
• ACUB Program will satisfy numerous mission and conservation goals. Preventing incompatible development and limiting or preventing access and gathering casual occupants and passers-by will preserve testing quantity-distance safety arcs, protecting current and future mission requirements.
• The ACUB program presents an opportunity for natural and cultural resources conservation benefits to work in concert with ongoing efforts by non-profit organizations, local, and state partners and cooperators
16
US Army Garrison
Picatinny Arsenal
Picatinny Arsenal ACUB Priority Areas
17
US Army Garrison
Picatinny Arsenal
Picatinny Arsenal
Potential Partners & Cooperators
• Trust for Public Lands• New Jersey Conservation Foundation• Land Conservancy of New Jersey• Rockaway Township• Jefferson Township• Morris County, NJ• NJ Division of Fish & Wildlife• NJ Division of Watershed Management • NJ Green Acres Program• NJ Highlands Council
