Picatinny Arsenal Environmental Restoration Advisory Board Meeting Minutes, Wednesday, April 26, FINAL Hilton Garden Inn Rockaway, New Jersey

Transcription

1 Picatinny Arsenal Environmental Restoration Advisory Board Meeting Minutes, Wednesday, April 26, FINAL Hilton Garden Inn Rockaway, New Jersey Attendees Name Organization Members Ted Gabel Mark Hiler Tom Brackin Bruce D'Adamo Chris Dour David Forti Sharon Hartzell Peter Lederman Virginia Michelin Anne Pavelka Cara Sileno Henry VanDyke Government Co-Chair, Picatinny Arsenal Community Co-Chair, Rockaway Twp. Env. Commission Community Member, Rockaway Township Community Member, Denville Township Official representative, Denville Township Community Member, Rockaway US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Community Member Official representative, Morris County, Division of Planning and Preservation NJ Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) Official representative, Rockaway Township Community Member, Borough of Rockaway Members of the Public, Support Staff for RAB, Picatinny, EPA and NJDEP Col. Jeff Ivy Tom Solecki Frank Misurelli Larry Brady Brad Gurie Sybil Lusardi Russ Marsh Mary Ellen Maly Pat Seppi Doug Pocze April Kuryluk George Stafford Frank DeSantis Debra MacDonald Mayble Abraham Lisa Voyce Katrina Harris Picatinny Arsenal, Garrison Commander Picatinny Environmental Management Division Picatinny Public Affairs Office Picatinny Legal Picatinny Environmental Management Division Picatinny/ARDEC U.S. Army Corps of Engineers U.S. Army Environmental Command U.S. EPA U.S. EPA Rockaway Township Resident/Picatinny Arsenal Employee Highlands Coalition EA Engineering ECC HDR HDR Bridge Consulting Corp. Mr. Ted Gabel convened the meeting at 7:27 p.m. He welcomed all to the meeting and thanked everyone for attending. He noted the last meeting had been in October 2016, and an update had been sent to Board members in March by .

2 Attendance Ms. Harris took attendance of the Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) members. Mr. Gabel invited all others present to introduce themselves. Correspondence Mr. Gabel noted there had been no correspondence since the last meeting. Resolutions, Motions, Significant Events The next meeting was tentatively scheduled for September A motion was made by Dr. Peter Lederman, seconded by Mr. Chris Dour, and unanimously passed to approve the October 6, 2016 meeting minutes. Old Business Mr. Gabel stated there were no Old Business items. Agenda Slides 1 (of Mr. Gabel s presentation): Agenda for April 26 th Picatinny Arsenal RAB Mr. Gabel reviewed the meeting agenda. Picatinny Lakes Proposed Plan Slides 1 and 2 (of Ms. MacDonald s presentation): Mr. Gabel introduced Ms. Debra MacDonald from ECC, a contractor to the Army. Ms. MacDonald stated her first presentation would be on the draft Picatinny Lake Proposed Plan which is being developed for Army review. Slides 3 and 4: Ms. MacDonald displayed a photograph of Picatinny Lake and stated Picatinny Lake had been part of the Lakes Group which also included Lake Denmark and the EOD Pond. She noted Picatinny Lake was separated from the Lakes Group once the Lake Denmark and the EOD Pond Feasibility Study was approved by the regulators. She stated the Feasibility Study for Picatinny Lake was finalized in December She explained the Picatinny Lake Feasibility Study addressed four hot spots with elevated metal detections of some combination of silver, copper, and mercury. Slide 5: Ms. MacDonald said the area addressed by the Feasibility Study is about two acres or approximately 5,000 cubic yards across the four sites. She reviewed the four alternatives discussed in the Feasibility Study: no action (included in all feasibility studies), land use controls, removal via mechanical or hydraulic dredging, and capping of the contaminated sediment. She added that capping and hydraulic dredging are active alternatives added to the 2016 Feasibility Study. Ms. MacDonald said she would be reviewing the pros and cons of the 2

3 two active alternatives as requested by Mr. Hiler. Mr. David Forti asked about the depth of Picatinny Lake, and Ms. MacDonald responded the lake is about 15 feet deep. Mr. Forti asked about the depth of the sediment hotspots, and Ms. MacDonald said the depth varies from a few feet off-shore to about 10 feet. Mr. Forti clarified that he was asking the depth to the contamination in the sediment, and Ms. MacDonald responded that it was usually in the top six inches, with a few detections down to about a foot. Slide 6: Ms. MacDonald displayed a table showing the comparison of the five alternatives. She stated the comparison was qualitative and explained the legend used for the ranking. She said the active alternatives, dredging and capping, score differently when compared to the evaluation criteria. She explained both alternatives met the first two criteria, overall protection of human health and the environment and compliance with applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements, which are the threshold criteria that must be met; however, there were differences in the comparison with the balancing criteria. She noted overall the evaluation was equal for dredging and capping. Slide 7: Ms. MacDonald discussed the dredging alternative and stated it would be very effective in the long-term as it would remove contamination and reduce the in-place volume and long-term mobility. She noted it does not require long-term maintenance and monitoring. Ms. MacDonald said the disadvantages to the dredging alternative are high cost and it is not easily scalable. She explained additional delineation of the lake had been performed, but the areas to be addressed have not yet been fully delineated at a few locations. She continued explaining that ancillary activities required with dredging, staging for off-site disposal and dewatering, are not as easily scalable as the capping alternative. Ms. MacDonald noted studies done at Superfund sites where dredging has been conducted have shown there is a re-suspension of the contamination and then it settles elsewhere; the studies also found contaminants in fish tissue have increased for a period of time after dredging before they begin to decrease again. She explained sedimentation curtains can be used to minimize these impacts. She stated another disadvantage is the change in habitat type which can occur from the removal of materials and backfilling which may create different contours. Slide 8: Ms. MacDonald showed graphics depicting the staging activities for the dredging alternative and the amount of land needed. She explained that since this is also a Military Munitions Response Site (MMRP), the excavated materials would be sifted for the presence of munition components. She stated access, staging, and transport are the key issues with the dredging alternative. Slide 9: Ms. MacDonald next reviewed the capping alternative and stated capping is very effective, especially for a lake setting. She stated capping reduces mobility and toxicity as amendments can be added to sequester the contaminants. She said it avoids the short-term impacts seen with the dredging alternative, as well as the safety risk from the potential presence of unexploded ordnance. Ms. MacDonald noted the costs associated with the dredging alternative are moderate, and the alternative is scalable in the event there is a need to expand the size. She explained the disadvantages are the long-term maintenance and monitoring. Ms. MacDonald stated a treatability study would be needed if amendments are going to be used. She noted that, as with dredging, it may cause some changes in habitat type at the border of the lake due to the addition of material. 3

4 Slide 10: Ms. MacDonald summarized the key factors for the capping alternative as the need for a treatability study, hydrodynamics to ensure stability, and design considerations (geotextiles, mats and soft stabilization) to minimize effects on the shoreline. Slide 11: Ms. MacDonald stated the dredging and capping alternatives are both rated good. She explained dredging scored higher in long-term effectiveness and reducing volume, and capping scored higher in implementability, short-term effectiveness, and cost. She advised the Army s preferred remedial alternative is sediment capping. Mr. Gabel said the Proposed Plan will be submitted to the regulators in June, and once finalized, a public comment period and public meeting will be held. Mr. Forti asked how long-term effectiveness of a sediment cap is determined. Ms. MacDonald responded that for reactive caps, pore water samples are collected to see if the contaminants are sequestered; for a physical cap, the integrity of the cap is inspected. Mr. Gabel added that the risk driver at this site is the mercury in the fish, so the fish will be monitored as part of the longterm monitoring program to see if the alternative is effective. In response to questions from Mr. Tom Brackin about the cost of the dredged materials and the disposal location, Mr. Gabel responded that the cost of disposal is included in the cost estimate for the alternative, whether the waste is a solid waste or hazardous waste which will be determined after it is excavated. Mr. Gabel said the waste would be disposed of off-site. In response to a question from Mr. George Stafford about how the areas close to the shoreline would be capped in light of the potential for wave action, Ms. MacDonald said geotextile material could be used to have a minimal impact on the environment. She noted this area could also be a change of habitat as it might not continue to be underwater if it is capped. Mr. Forti asked if a partial removal of sediments was considered, and Ms. MacDonald said it was not an alternative at this time. Mr. Bruce D Adamo asked about whether the metals in the sediment are migrating, Ms. MacDonald said migration would only occur if the metals were re-suspended during disturbance. Mr. D Adamo asked about the source of the capping material, Ms. MacDonald said the material would be certified clean fill imported from an off-site source. Mr. Hiler asked about the cost of the two active alternatives, and Ms. MacDonald responded that the approximate costs are $6 million for dredging and $3 million for capping. She advised there was a minimal cost difference between the two dredging alternatives. She agreed with a comment by Ms. Sharon Hartzell that the dredging cost could change if a much larger area needed to be dredged. Mr. Dour asked whether the costs assumed hazardous waste disposal, Ms. MacDonald said she did not think hazardous waste disposal was assumed, but she would check. [After the meeting, Ms. MacDonald noted that for costing purposes in the Feasibility Study for sediment disposal, half of the excavated waste was assumed to be hazardous waste, and the other half of the sediment was assumed to be non-hazardous.] 4

5 Ms. Virginia Michelin asked how much could the costs change, and Ms. MacDonald responded she did not expect any significant cost changes. Ms. Michelin asked about the impact on the habitat of adding the capping material, and Ms. MacDonald agreed it would result in a different elevation. Mr. Gabel added that the Feasibility Study included an evaluation of the volume of water in the lake and potential impacts as Picatinny uses water from the lake for the golf course and fire emergencies; he stated the evaluation showed the impact would not be significant on the total volume of the lake. Ms. MacDonald added the evaluation showed it would less than one percent. Mortar and Skeet Area Feasibility Study Slides 12 and 13: Ms. MacDonald advised she would be giving a high-level overview of the Feasibility Study which is currently under review by EPA and NJDEP. She stated comments had been received from NJDEP. She displayed aerial photographs showing the location of the sites and stated they are located in the southern part of Picatinny Arsenal. Ms. MacDonald explained the Military Munitions Response Program site is the Former Mortar Range, while the Installation Restoration Program site is the Former Skeet Range which is completely contained within the Former Mortar Range. Slide 14: Ms. MacDonald explained the Feasibility Study addresses the potential explosive hazards within the 183-acre site boundary, as well as the chemical contamination within the site boundary that is not already addressed under existing Records of Decision. She noted groundwater is not included in this Feasibility Study. Slide 15: Ms. MacDonald stated a Remedial Investigation was performed under the Military Munitions Response Program which included the Former Mortar Range in 2014, and a Remedial Investigation for the Former Skeet Range was performed under the Installation Restoration Program in Mr. Gabel added that presentations had been given at previous Board meetings on the results of these remedial investigations. Slide 16: Ms. MacDonald stated the remedial investigations identified unacceptable human health risks based on elevated levels of lead in surface soil, metals (antimony, arsenic and lead) in sediment, and a risk of explosive hazards in surface and subsurface soils. She noted the Munitions and Explosives of Concern (MEC) Hazard Assessment resulted in a hazard level of 1, which is the highest potential explosive hazard. Slides 17 and 18: Ms. MacDonald reviewed the remedial action objectives which are to prevent human health exposure to the contaminants mentioned which are above the NJDEP s Non- Residential Direct Contact standards and to reduce the unacceptable hazard from munitions at the sites to potential receptors, including Picatinny personnel, contractors, visitors, and recreational users so the likelihood of encounter is negligible. Slides 19 and 20: Ms. MacDonald showed a list of the remedial alternatives: No Action, Land Use Controls, and three combinations of MEC removal and methods of addressing the contamination in soil and sediment. Mr. Gabel added the idea of a cap has been discussed by Picatinny s developers since the site is next to the Former Burning Grounds which has been capped, along with the expansion of the solar panels project which is currently on top of the Former Burning Grounds cap. He said there has been no decision, just some discussion. Ms. 5

6 MacDonald discussed a table showing the five alternatives and their rankings when compared to the seven criteria. Slide 21: Ms. MacDonald noted the Feasibility Study would be finalized after the regulators comments have been addressed, followed by the development of a Proposed Plan and Record of Decision. Mr. Gabel asked for the estimated date the Proposed Plan would be released for public comment, and Ms. MacDonald agreed it would be early Site Group Record of Decision Slides 22 and 23: Ms. MacDonald reviewed the three sites included in the Record of Decision Site 118, Site 131, and Site 149, and noted the Record of Decision addresses soil contamination at the three sites. She advised the Feasibility Study was finalized in 2014, and the Proposed Plan was released for public comment in October Slide 24: Ms. MacDonald discussed the additional delineation performed at the sites in 2016 to better define the areas of attainment. She advised the draft Record of Decision for soil excavation and off-disposal site is being finalized. She noted there would also be a monitoring component to the remedy. Remedial Action-Operation/Long-Term Management Status Update Slide 1 (of Mr. DeSantis presentation): Mr. Gabel introduced Mr. Frank DeSantis of EA Engineering, a contractor to the Army. Slide 2: Mr. DeSantis reminded the Board that EA Engineering s contract involves performing remedial action-operation at 14 sites and long-term management at 70 sites. He noted sites are consolidated into seven remedial action-operation groups/sites and 12 long-term management groups/sites and reviewed the list of groups/sites. Mr. DeSantis stated reports finalized under his contract are posted to the Picatinny Arsenal Environmental web site. Slide 3: Mr. DeSantis reviewed the status of Area C, which includes the Southern Boundary wells which are sampled for a wide range of compounds. He stated the selected remedy was long-term monitoring and land-use control. He reviewed the results of the 2016 sampling and stated lead was removed from future monitoring events, and vinyl chloride and arsenic sampling was changed to an annual frequency. Mr. DeSantis said the results from the Southern Boundary sampling showed no detections of explosives, benzene was detected in one well about New Jersey standards but below EPA standards, and sporadic metal detections were observed consistent with prior sampling. He stated 2017 activities will include annual sampling and reporting. Slide 4: Mr. DeSantis next discussed the status of Group 1, noting the selected remedy was soil excavation and monitored natural attenuation of explosives. He explained there are two distinct groundwater plumes with commingled RDX/TNT (explosive compounds). Mr. DeSantis reviewed the 2016 sampling results which showed RDX exceedance in surface water and RDX exceedances in sediment. He noted overall the contaminant levels are declining in groundwater, and this site is transitioning to annual sampling. Mr. DeSantis advised 2017 activities will 6

7 include sampling and reporting, along with some additional studies required by the five-year review which are being contracted for by the Army. He explained the additional studies will look at the explosives in the sediment and surface water. Slide 5: Mr. DeSantis reviewed the status of Group 3 where enhanced bioremediation is being done to address trichloroethene (TCE) and carbon tetrachloride in the groundwater. He said the 2016 sampling found TCE below threshold limits, carbon tetrachloride above standards in two wells, and no contaminants of concern in surface water. Mr. DeSantis advised sampling and reporting will be conducted in Slide 6: Mr. DeSantis next discussed the status of RI Concept Site 78 where the selected remedy is monitored natural attenuation for chlorinated volatile organic compounds in the groundwater. He explained in 2016 the sampling results showed only vinyl chloride above site cleanup levels so the site is transitioning to a frequency of every six quarters with only two wells remaining in the program. He stated 2017 activities will be sampling and reporting. Slide 7: Mr. DeSantis provided an update on the Lower Burning Ground where a cap and monitored natural attenuation for metals is the selected remedy. He reviewed the 2016 sampling results which showed seven metals above screening levels. He stated the site is transitioning to annual sampling for select metals, and sampling and reporting will be conducted in Slide 8: Mr. DeSantis next discussed the status of Green Pond and Bear Swamp Brooks, where the selected remedy is land use controls, ecological monitoring, and sediment and surface water sampling. He advised work in 2016 included the annual biological, sediment and surface water sampling, as well as the land use control inspections. Mr. DeSantis said sampling and reporting will be conducted in 2017, as well as an additional study identified as being needed which is being contracted for by the Army. Slide 9: Mr. DeSantis reviewed the status of the Post Farm Landfill and advised the selected remedy is monitored natural attenuation for cadmium. He stated in 2016 one well was sampled, and cadmium was above the screening level. He noted this site is transitioning to a sampling frequency of every sixth quarters, and no sampling is planned for Slide 10: Mr. DeSantis provided an update on Area B where expedited bioremediation is being implemented. He advised the 2016 sampling detected only vinyl chloride above site cleanup levels, and no contaminants of concern above site cleanup levels in surface water. He stated five wells were removed from the sampling program. Mr. DeSantis noted 2017 activities will include a molasses injection to address persistent vinyl chloride, along with sampling and reporting. Slide 11: Mr. DeSantis discussed the status of Area D where a permeable reactive barrier was put in place to intercept groundwater flow and monitored natural attenuation. He noted the barrier is functioning as designed but may be losing some treatment efficiency; natural attenuation is occurring. He said there will be increased sampling and reporting in 2017, and the Army is procuring additional studies required by the five-year review. Mr. Gabel added that the studies will include looking at the possibility of doing some enhanced bioremediation upgradient of the wall. 7

8 Slide 12: Mr. DeSantis next reviewed the status of Area E where monitored natural attenuation of chlorinated volatile organic compounds is being conducted. He said sampling in 2016 found monitored natural attenuation is effective at this site, and there are no impacts to surface water. He advised in 2017 sampling and reporting will continue, including the biennial sampling. Slide 13: Mr. DeSantis provided an update on Mid-Valley and advised the selected remedies for the different plumes are enhanced reductive dechlorination, monitored natural attenuation, and long-term monitoring. He stated an additional injection was done in 2016 to treat the volatile organic compound plume at Robinson Run. Mr. DeSantis said monitored natural attenuation is occurring in the volatile organic compound and RDX plumes, and sampling and reporting will continue in Installation Restoration Program/Military Munitions Response Program Updates Slide 3 (of Mr. Gabel s presentation): Mr. Gabel advised the Community Involvement Plan is being revised to update a number of sections. He stated Ms. Katrina Harris will be conducting the community interviews with a cross-section of stakeholders in the next two weeks. He asked RAB members to be upfront and open in their input. He advised the revised plan will be submitted to regulators this summer. Slide 4: Mr. Gabel reviewed sites that are in the Feasibility Study/Proposed Plan stage where no further action is being recommended. He stated presentations on these sites had been given at previous meetings. Mr. Gabel advised a Proposed Plan will be issued for PICA-111, which includes six sites. He stated there will be three Proposed Plans for 45 Sites; he advised EPA had approved this Feasibility Study, and additional sampling was recently completed as requested by NJDEP. Mr. Gabel said additional sampling is being planned at the Non-Lake Proposed Plan, and a work plan will be submitted to the regulators in a few weeks. He explained PICA-207 Sites are a few sites that were removed from the 26 Site No Further Action Record of Decision and where additional sampling was requested by NJDEP. Mr. Gabel said the PICA- 207 sites will go into a new Record of Decision without a Proposed Plan. Slides 5 and 6: Mr. Gabel displayed an aerial photograph showing the location of the Military Munitions Response Program sites. He reviewed sites where Feasibility Studies are underway and advised presentations will be given at future meetings. Mr. Gabel discussed the Off-Post MMRP Site where there are five different property owners; he noted some of the Rockaway Township Board members may be asked for their help with this site. Mr. Gabel said the Army wants to discuss whether land use controls are acceptable for off-post areas. Slide 7: Mr. Gabel advised a remedial investigation will be conducted at a new site, the Eastern Edge of Green Pond Brook. He stated the site is.1 acre, 10 feet by 500 feet long. Mr. Gabel said the Site Investigation Report recommended a remedial investigation be conducted based on exceedances of lead, arsenic and chromium. He noted a work plan for the remedial investigation, including human health and ecological risk assessments, will be submitted to the regulators in late summer Slides 8 and 9: Mr. Gabel showed an aerial photograph of another new site, Abandoned Railroad Track. He advised a Preliminary Assessment was conducted as requested by EPA and 8

9 NJDEP. He advised the Army believes the investigation has shown no significant threat to human health or the environment and does not warrant further investigation under CERCLA. He noted this conclusion was accepted by EPA; NJDEP has submitted comments. Slides 10 and 11: Mr. Gabel noted Picatinny continues to implement land-use controls from the non-time critical removal action for the Military Munitions Response Program sites, primarily construction support so those workers are protected from any potential unexploded ordnance. Mr. Gabel showed maps of the sites, and a list of the construction support avoidance performed since Open Discussion Mr. Gabel invited additional comments and questions and none was offered. Next Meeting Mr. Hiler requested the next meeting be no later than September. Mr. Gabel stated the meeting would most likely be at the hotel due to security restrictions at Picatinny Arsenal which would restrict attendance by anyone with a criminal background. A motion was made by Mr. Lederman, seconded by Mr. Hiler, and unanimously approved to adjourn the meeting at 8:43 p.m. 9

10 Picatinny Restoration Advisory Board Meeting April 26, 2017 Pending/In Progress Action Items Date Created Action Item Person Responsible Status March 2016 Recruit additional Picatinny representatives for the Board Ted Gabel/LTC Parker April 2017 Schedule next Board meeting possibly no later than September. Ted Gabel Working on sending basewide . 10