PUBLIC HEALTH ASSESSMENT

HERTEL LANDFILL
PLATTEKILL, ULSTER COUNTY, NEW YORK

APPENDIX A

Figure 1. Site Location Map

Figure 2. Hertel Landfill Site Map

Figure 3. Hertel Landfill Regional Location

Figure 4. Surface Soil Sampling Locations

Figure 5. Test Pit Excavation Locations

Figure 6. Surface Water/Sediment Sampling Locations

Figure 7. Areal Extent of Landfill

APPENDIX B

Table 1.

Hertel Landfill Remedial Investigation
Gas Chromatograph Soil Gas Results.

Sample ID #	Concentrations (ppb)
	Benzene*	Toluene*	Trichloro- ethene*	Tetrachloro- ethene*
	1	51	ND<2	ND<2 ND<2
	2	ND<4	70	ND<4 ND<4
	3	ND<4	ND<4	13 ND<4
	4	15	>178**	41 >142
	5	ND<4	184	7065
	6	ND<4	32	4ND
	7	ND<4	ND<4	ND<4 ND<4
	8	ND<20	1448	1634243
	9	ND<4	7322	ND<4178
	10	98	115	21841
	11	ND<2000	36782	7843132389
	12	ND<4000	13071	ND<4000 ND<4000
	13	ND<40	69	305405
	14	159	690	251121
	15	61	35	131121

* = contaminant of concern in ambient air
** = masked in off-scale peak

ND = not detected at instrument's detection limit

< = less than

> = greater than

Table 2.

Hertel Landfill Site Soil Sampling Data and Comparison Values.
(All values in milligrams per kilogram)

Compound	Surface Soil Range	Subsurface Soil Range	Typical Background Range**	Comparison Values
				Minimal Health Risk	Source****
Semi-volatiles
Anthracene	0.048-0.13	0.088-0.15	***	7,470	NYS RfG
Benzo(a)anthracene	0.082-1.2	0.30-0.42	***	NA
Benzo(a)pyrene	0.094-1.1	0.24	***	0.03	NYS CREG
Benzo(b)fluoranthene	0.086-1.71	0.26-0.71	***	NA
Benzo(k)fluoranthene	0.098	0.27-0.36	***	NA
Benzo(ghi)perylene	0.14-0.72		***	NA
*Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate	0.037-2.4	0.087-4.5	ND	2.3	NYS CREG
Butylbenzylphthalate		0.092-0.24	ND	3,220	NYS RfG
Chrysene	0.078-1.7	0.27-0.43	***	NA
Di-n-butylphthalate	0.08-0.09		ND	4,100	NYS RfG
Diethylphthalate	0.043	0.11	ND	677	NYS RfG
Di-n-octylphthalate		0.16	ND	489	NYS RfG
Fluoranthene	0.063-2.4	0.045-1.2	***	746	NYS RfG
Fluorene	0.046	0.048-0.42	***	328	NYS RfG
Indo(123cd)pyrene	0.058-0.65		***	NA
*Naphthalene	ND(0.37)-3.1	0.068-0.65	ND	1.4	NYS RfG
Phenanthrene	0.077-1.9	0.17-1.1	***	NA
Pyrene	0.058-2.8	0.073-1.1	***	67	NYS RfG
1,4-Dichlorobenzene		0.10	ND	0.4	NYS CREG
4-Methylphenol		0.34	ND	NA
Volatiles
Benzene		0.001-0.002	ND	0.05	NYS CREG
Carbon Disulfide		0.003	ND	5,000	EPA RfD
Chlorobenzene		0.001-0.010	ND	0.3	NYS CREG
Ethylbenzene		0.007-0.041	ND	200	NYS RfG
Toluene		0.002-0.022	ND	230	NYS RfG
Xylenes		0.013-0.30	ND	4,620	NYS RfG
Pesticides
4,4'-DDE	0.150-0.50		0.01-7	0.01	NYS CREG
4,4'-DDT	0.093-0.62		0.01-6	0.07	NYS CREG
Metals
Aluminum	5,210-33,500	9,360-16,200	7,000-100,000	NA
*Antimony		13.0-21.0	0.6-10	20	EPA RfD
*Arsenic	9.1-109	2.0-12.5	10-20	50	ATSDR EMEG
*Barium	43.5-4,490	32.0-409	300-500	3,500	EPA RfD
Beryllium		0.43-0.89	<1-7	200	ATSDR EMEG
*Cadmium	1.2-113	0.55-1.8	<0.5-1	10	NYS EMEG
Calcium	1,410-29,500	986-2450	100-400,000	NA
*Chromium	7.7-2,880	12.2-21.9	10-40	200	ATSDR EMEG
Cobalt	5.4-34.7	8.9-13.9	<0.3-70	NA
*Copper	32.2-319	20.3-50.1	<1-25	6,500	EPA RfD
*Iron	538-278,000	17,400-28,300	10,000-40,000	NA
*Lead	29.3-1,170	8.5-100	10-300	NA
*Magnesium	499-14,200	3,900-6,010	50-6,000	NA
*Manganese	230-6,040	201-1,720	500-3,000	5,000	EPA RfD
Mercury	0.3-1.60		0.01-3.4	15	EPA RfD
*Nickel	8.4-347	14.3-25	<5-20	1,000	ATSDR EMEG
Potassium	14.9-2,320	738-1,550	50-30,000	NA
Sodium	244-1,460	70.5-237	3,000-50,000	NA
Vanadium	16.9-51.1	12.1-22.3	3-500	350	EPA RfD
*Zinc	62.6-615	48.6-286	50-100	10,000	EPA RfD

Table 2.

Hertel Landfill Site Soil Sampling Data and Comparison Values (page 2).
(All values in milligrams per kilogram)

Compound	Surface Soil Range	Subsurface Soil Range	Typical Background Range**	Comparison Values
				Minimal Health Risk	Source****
Inorganics
Cyanide		0.61-10.4	ND	1,000	ATSDR EMEG

NA - not available
ND - not determined

* - Contaminant of concern in soil.

**References: Adriano (1986); Clarke et al. (1985a,b); Connor et al. (1957); Davis and Bennett (1983); Frank et al. (1976); McGovern (1988); Shacklette and Boerngen (1984)

***Based on reported background levels for total polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons of <1 to 13 milligrams per kilogram in soil from relatively rural areas of the eastern United States (ATSDR, 1990b; Edwards, 1983)

****NYS CREG = New York State Cancer Risk Evaluation Guideline
NYS RfG = New York State Risk Reference Guideline
NYS EMEG = New York State Environmental Media Evaluation Guide
ATSDR EMEG = ATSDR Environmental Media Evaluation Guide
EPA RfD = EPA Risk Reference Dose

Table 3.

Hertel Landfill.
Summary of Surface Water Data (Excluding Leachate Samples).
Remedial Investigation (See Table 8 for comparison values).

Compound Name	Frequency of Detection	Range of Detection (mcg/L) (excluding non-detects)
Semi-volatile Organics
4-Methylphenol	1/21	7
Benzoic Acid	1/21	9
Benzyl Alcohol	1/21	10
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)- phthalate	3/21	2-3
Volatile Organics
Acetone	3/21	7-110
Carbon Disulfide	1/21	2
Toluene	1/21	4
Inorganics
*Aluminum	13/21	31-4,280
Arsenic	6/21	1-12
Barium	21/21	8-509
Calcium	21/21	11,700-178,000
*Cadmium	3/21	3-37
Cobalt	1/21	7
Copper	8/21	4
*Iron	21/21	178-190,000
*Lead	9/21	2-55
Magnesium	21/21	853-17,000
*Manganese	21/21	33-11,800
Mercury	1/21	1
Nickel	2/21	6-19
Potassium	15/21	794-7,700
Selenium	2/21	3
Sodium	21/21	1,630-29,600
Vanadium	7/21	6-12
Zinc	10/21	2.2-347

NA - Not applicable
* - Contaminant of concern in surface water

Table 4.

Hertel Landfill Site Sediment Data and Comparison Values.
(All values in milligrams per kilogram)
Remedial Investigation.

Compound	Frequency of Detection	Range of Detection	Typical Background Range**	Comparison Values for Soil
				Minimal Health Risk	Source****
Semi-volatiles
Acenaphthylene	1/34	0.160	***	NA
Anthracene	1/34	0.180	***	7,470	NYS RfG
Benzo(a)anthracene	1/34	1.50	***	NA
Benzo(b)fluoranthene	2/34	0.230XJ-2.50XJ	***	NA
Benzo(k)fluoranthene	2/34	0.230XJ-1.20	***	NA
Benzo(a)pyrene	2/34	0.570-0.870	***	0.03	NYS CREG
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate	1/34	2.3	ND	2.3	NYS CREG
Chrysene	2/34	0.140-1.70	***	NA
Dibenzo(A,H)anthacene	1/34	0.960	***	NA
1,2-Dichlorobenzene	1/34	0.120	ND	324	NYS RfG
Di-n-butylphthalate	1/34	0.058	ND	4,100	NYS RfG
Di-n-octylphthalate	1/34	2.50XJ	ND	489	NYS RfG
Fluoranthene	2/34	0.190-3.10	***	746	NYS RfG
Fluorene	1/34	0.170	***	328	NYS RfG
Indeno(1,2,3-CD)pyrene	1/34	0.390	***	NA
2-Methylnaphthalene	1/34	0.110	ND	NA
4-Methylphenol	1/34	0.059	ND	NA
Phenanthrene	1/34	2.50	***	NA
Pyrene	2/34	0.190-2.90	***	67	NYS RfG
Volatiles
2-Butanone	4/34	0.003-0.086	ND	2	NYS RfG
Carbon disulfide	7/34	0.003-0.069	ND	5,000	EPA RfD
Chlorobenzene	1/34	0.130	ND	0.3	NYS CREG
Chloroform	3/34	0.002-0.019	ND	0.2	NYS CREG
*Methylene chloride	2/34	0.32-0.78	ND	0.07	NYS CREG
Toluene	4/34	0.005-0.008	ND	230	NYS RfG
Xylenes	1/34	0.22	ND	4,620	NYS RfG
Pesticides
4,4'-DDD	2/34	0.094-0.10	0.01-5	NA
4,4'-DDE	1/34	0.038	0.01-7	0.01	NYS CREG
4,4'-DDT	1/34	0.074	0.01-6	0.07	NYS CREG
Metals
Aluminum	33/33	1,530-32,500	7,000-100,000	NA
Antimony	1/33	8.5	0.6-10	20	EPA RfD
Arsenic	31/33	0.66-30	10-20	50	ATSDR EMEG
*Barium	33/33	32.8-6,230	300-500	3,500	EPA RfD
Beryllium	22/33	0.29-3.5	<1-7	200	ATSDR EMEG
*Cadmium	9/33	1.6-16.5	<0.5-1	10	NYS EMEG
Calcium	33/33	1,270-23,700	100-400,000	NA
Chromium	33/33	7.6-30.9	10-40	200	ATSDR EMEG
Cobalt	30/33	1.7-60.6	<0.3-70	NA
*Copper	33/33	3-67.8	<1-25	6,500	EPA RfD
*Iron	33/33	1,310-137,000	10,000-40,000	NA
Lead	19/33	6.7-93.7	10-300	NA
Magnesium	33/33	721-5,950	50-6,000	NA
*Manganese	33/33	64.9-68,100	500-3,000	5,000	EPA RfD
Mercury	7/33	0.18-0.85	0.01-3.4	15	EPA RfD
Nickel	29/33	6.2-29	<5-10	1,000	ATSDR EMEG
Potassium	30/33	446-2,080	50-30,000	NA

Table 4.

Hertel Landfill Site Sediment Data and Comparison Values (page 2).
(All values in milligrams per kilogram)
Remedial Investigation.

Compound	Frequency of Detection	Range of Detection	Typical Background Range**	Comparison Values for Soil
				Minimal Health Risk	Source****
Metals (continued)
Selenium	14/33	0.40-6.1	0.1-4	100	ATSDR EMEG
Silver	15/33	0.84-12.8	0.1-5	250	EPA RfD
Sodium	32/33	7.69-889	3,000-50,000	NA
Thallium	3/33	0.32-0.88		4	EPA RfD
Vanadium	33/33	5.9-79	.5 3-500	350	EPA RfD
Zinc	31/33	32-372	500-100	10,000	EPA RfD
Inorganics
Cyanide	2/34	1.70-3	ND	1,000	ATSDR EMEG

J - This parameter not seperable from other parameters; value given is the total value for all parameters in the sample with this qualifier.

NA - not available
ND - not determined

* - contaminant of concern in sediment

**References: Adriano (1986); Clarke et al. (1985a,b); Connor et al. (1957); Davis and Bennett (1983); Dragun (1988); Frank et al. (1976); Klein (1972); McGovern (1988); Schacklette and Boerngen (1984)

***Based on reported background levels for total polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons of <1 to 13 milligrams per kilogram in soil from relatively rural areas of the eastern United States (ATSDR, 1990b; Edwards, 1983).

****NYS CREG = New York State Cancer Risk Evaluation Guideline
NYS RfG = New York State Risk Reference Guideline
NYS EMEG = New York State Environmental Media Evaluation Guide
ATSDR EMEG = ATSDR Environmental Media Evaluation Guide
EPA RfD = EPA Risk Reference Dose

Table 5.

Hertel Landfill.
Summary of Groundwater Data - Round 1.
Remedial Investigation (See Table 8 for Comparison Values).

Compound Name	Frequency of Detection	Range of Detection (mcg/L)
Semi-volatile Organics
1,4-Dichlorobenzene	2/26	2
2,4-Dimethylphenol	3/26	3-5
4-Methylphenol	2/26	31-44
*Benzoic Acid	3/26	14-200
*Bis(2-ethylhexyl)- phthalate	2/26	3-10
Diethylphthalate	1/26	10
*Di-n-octylphthalate	1/26	69
Naphthalene	5/26	4-39
*Phenol	3/26	18-72
Volatiles
*Benzene	2/26	5-6
*Chlorobenzene	3/26	1-24
Chloroethane	2/26	4
Chloroform	1/26	1
*Ethylbenzene	6/26	1-64
*Toluene	4/26	16-31
*Xylenes	5/26	10-140
Inorganics
*Aluminum	26/26	649-252,000
Arsenic	25/26	1-41
*Barium	26/26	34-1,980
Beryllium	11/26	1.3-15
Cadmium	5/26	3-6
Calcium	26/26	181,000-1,460,000
*Chromium	20/26	3.6-538
*Cobalt	21/26	7-220
Copper	26/26	4.7-846
*Iron	26/26	2,290-482,000
*Lead	19/26	4.7-288
Magnesium	26/26	2,270-133,000

Table 5.

Hertel Landfill.
Summary of Groundwater Data - Round 1 (page 2).
Remedial Investigation (See Table 8 for Comparison Values).

Compound Name	Frequency of Detection	Range of Detection (mcg/L)
Inorganics (continued)
*Manganese	26/26	159-212,000
Mercury	17/26	0.2-2.2
Nickel	17/26	15.4-490
Potassium	26/26	851-41,700
*Sodium	26/26	2,180-112,000
Vanadium	21/26	3.7-319
Zinc	26/26	23.4-2,880

NA - Not applicable
* - Contaminant of concern in groundwater

Table 6.

Hertel Landfill.
Summary of Groundwater Data - Round 2.
Remedial Investigation (See Table 8 for Comparison Values).

Compound Name	Frequency of Detection	Range of Detection (mcg/L)
Semi-volatile Organics
*2,4-Dimethylphenol	2/27	32-82
*4-Methylphenol	3/27	17-130
*Bis(2-ethylhexyl)- phthalate	1/27	21
*Diethylphthalate	2/27	11-900
Naphthalene	1/27	36
Phenol	1/27	18
Volatile Organics
*Benzene	1/27	6
*Chlorobenzene	3/27	22-28
*Ethylbenzene	4/27	6-63
*Toluene	4/27	16-33
*Xylene (Total)	3/27	62-200
Inorganics
*Aluminum	7/25	4,390-88,700
Arsenic	23/25	3-44
Barium	25/25	17-943
Beryllium	10/25	1-7
Cadmium	3/25	2-9
Calcium	25/25	23,400-671,000
*Chromium	10/25	46-143
*Cobalt	24/25	4-109
*Iron	25/25	1,180-287,000
*Lead	24/25	3-313
Magnesium	25/25	3,830-123,000
*Manganese	24/25	591-121,000
Nickel	23/25	13-29
Potassium	25/25	878-40,500
*Silver	2/25	16-266
*Sodium	25/25	2,110-115,000
Vanadium	23/25	4-100
Zinc	25/25	6.8-951

* - Contaminant of concern in groundwater

Table 7.

Hertel Landfill Remedial Investigation
Summary of Compounds Detected in the Private Wells.
(See Table 8 for Comparison Values)

Field Sample ID Date Sampled	PW-01 6/19/90	PW-2 6/19/90	PW-03 6/20/90	PW-04 6/20/90	PW-05 6/20/90	PW-06 6/20/90
Volatile Organics (mcg/L)
Acetone	10u	5j	10u	10u	10uj	10uj
Base Neutral/Acid Extractables (mcg/L)	ND	ND	ND	ND	ND	ND
Pesticides/PCB's (mcg/L)	ND	ND	ND	ND	ND	ND
Inorganics (mcg/L)
arsenic	2.0u	2.0u	2.0u	2.0u	2.0u	2.0uj
barium	6.2	16.1	5.2	5.2	10.9	17.5
calcium	39200.0	27100.0	54500.0	28900.0	56500.0	45300.0
copper	15.0	4.6	3.3	18.2	3.0u	81.2
iron	205.0	139.0	63.1	29.2	43.2	71.5
lead	2.4j	3.4j	2.4j	2.2j	2.0uj	--r
magnesium	2360.0	2170.0	4400.0	1790.0	7450.0	5180.0
manganese	7.0u	41.2	7.0u	7.0u	7.0u	4.3
selenium	3.0u	3.0u	3.0u	3.0u	3.0u	3.0uj
sodium	6700.0	6560.0	12400.0	7050.0	5490.0	7670.0
zinc	--r	--r	--r	--r	--r	26.8
Field Sample ID Date Sampled	PW-07 6/20/90	PW- 8 6/20/90	PW-09 6/20/90	PW-10 6/20/90	PW-11 6/20/90	PW-12 6/20/90
Volatile Organics (mcg/L)
Acetone	10uj	10uj	10u	10u	10u	10u
Base Neutral/Acid Extractables (mcg/L)	ND	ND	ND	ND	ND	ND
Pesticides/PCB's (mcg/L)	ND	ND	ND	ND	ND	ND
Inorganics (mcg/L)
arsenic	3.2j	2.0uj	2.0uj	2.0u	2.0u	2.0uj
barium	49.0j	6.0	29.2j	34.3	14.0	9.4
calcium	41700.0	27200.0	43500.0	46500.0	64400.0	37600.0
copper	38.5	24.6	7.5	11.7	24.8	34.7
*iron	539.0*	110.0	252.0	28.6	412.0*	139.0
lead	--r	--r	--r	2.6j	30.7j	--r
magnesium	4390.0	1950.0	5640.0	8940.0	5260.0	2740.0
manganese	242.0	1.2	156.0	7.0u	49.9	2.4
selenium	3.0uj	3.0uj	3.0uj	3.0u	3.0u	3.0u
*sodium	11900.0	19500.0j	4560.0	7180.0	30500.0*	27200.0j*
zinc	34.1	211.0	41.4j	--r	--r	276.0

 u = not detected to the reported detection limit
uj = not detected to an estimated detection limit
j = estimated value
r = data rejected by validation
ND = no analytes of this compound group detected

*contaminant of concern in private wells

Table 8.

New York State and Federal
Standards and Guidelines
(all values in mcg/L)

Chemical	NEW YORK STATE			U.S. EPA
	Ground Water	Surface Water	Drinking Water	Drinking Water
VOCs and Semi-volatiles
acetone	50	--	50	--
benzene	0.7	0.7	5	5
benzoic acid	50	--	50	--
benzyl alcohol	--	--	--	--
bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate	50	4g	50	4p
carbon disulfide	--	--	--	--
chlorobenzene	5	x20	5	100
chloroethane	5	--	5	--
chloroform	7	7	100d	100d
1,4-dichlorobenzene	4.7e	30	5	75;5ps
diethylphthalate	50	50g	50	--
2,4-dimethylphenol	1	1	50	--
di-n-octylphthalate	50	50g	50	--
ethylbenzene	5	5g	5	700;30ps
4-methylphenol	1	1	50	--
naphthalene	10g	10	50	--
phenol	1	1	50	--
toluene	5	5g	5	1,000;40ps
xylene (total)	5n	5g,n	5n	10,000i;20ps
Metals
aluminum	--	--	--	50-200**
arsenic	25	50	50	50
barium	1,000	1,000	1,000	2,000
beryllium	3g	3g	--	1p
cadmium	5	10	10	5
calcium	--	--	--	--
chromium	50	50	50	100
cobalt	10	10	10	10
copper	200	200	1,000	1,300p
iron	300	300	300	--
lead	25	50	50	50;5p
magnesium	35,000g	35,000	--	--
manganese	300	300	300	50s
mercury	2	2	2	2
nickel	--	--	--	100p

Table 8.

New York State and Federal
Standards and Guidelines
(all values in mcg/L) (page 2).

Chemical	NEW YORK STATE			U.S. EPA
	Ground Water	Surface Water	Drinking Water	Drinking Water
Metals (cont.)
potassium	--	--	--	--
selenium	--	--	--	--
silver	50	50	50	50
sodium	20,000	--	*	--
vanadium	--	--	--	--
zinc	5,000	300	5,000	5,000s

*no designated limit; water containing more than 20,000 mcg/L should not be used for drinking by people on severely restricted sodium diets; water containing more than 270,000 mcg/L should not be used for drinking by people on moderately restricted sodium diets

**Secondary standard: U.S. EPA Federal Register, Vol. 50, page 46,975, November 13, 1985.

d = Drinking water standard for total trihalomethanes produced as a result of disinfection with chlorine. This standard is inappropriate for evaluating environmental contamination not associated with disinfection practices.
e = applies to total of 1,2- and 1,4- isomers
g = guidance value
h = total PCBs as decachlorobiphenyl
i = total xylenes
n = applies to each isomer separately unless isomers are analytically indistinguishable
p = proposed maximum contaminant level (MCL)
ps = proposed secondary MCL
s = secondary MCL

APPENDIX C.

HERTEL LANDFILL
RESPONSES TO PUBLIC COMMENTS

Comment #1

In the areas of Pathway Analyses and Public Health Implications, the report states there are areas ofconcern that pose a public health threat, yet in the area of recommendations the remedies are notsufficient to mitigate the dangers and the perception is that these recommendations tend to minimizethat danger.

Response #1

We believe the recommendations are sufficient to mitigate the potential public health threats. Specificquestions about remedial design should be sent to the US EPA. Specific suggestions on therecommendations in the public health assessment should be sent to the NYS DOH.

Comment #2

Leaching of waters, from this site, that will continue to contaminate the neighboring streams andwetlands must be stopped. The landfill area must be capped immediately. The town and especiallythe residents of the area need a time frame as to when remediation will begin.

Response #2

The proposed clean-up plan for the site addresses the principal threats posed by the site. A majorcomponent of the plan is the construction of a multi-layer closure cap over the landfill. The cappingof the landfill will minimize the infiltration of rainfall and snow melt into the landfill, thereby reducingthe potential for contaminants leaching from the landfill and contaminating the wetlands andgroundwater.

The current time frame for remediation of the site has reached the remedial design phase, for whicha draft work plan has been issued. Once approved, the actual design of the remedy is expected totake 12-18 months. The actual period of construction is also expected to take about 12-18 months,resulting in a total estimate of 36 months.

Comment #3

The presence of contaminated surface soils, which poses a high health risk, especially to children, willnot be eliminated through fencing of the landfill area only. The wetlands bordering the site are alsoa problem area but access to them will not be impeded under the current remedial plan. The only wayto prevent access (to contaminated areas) is through fencing of the entire site including placards towarn people of the danger, as well as periodic inspection of the fencing.

Comment #4

The exposure of contaminated materials through the neighboring wetlands and streams must also beaddressed, either through fencing, extensive education program or other means.

Response #3 and #4

The potential for exposure to contaminated surface soils will be eliminated by capping of the landfill. The cap will consist of a four layered system: an upper vegetative layer, a soil protective layer overa low permeability layer, and a gas vent/collection layer. The placement of fencing around theperimeter of the landfill area part of the site and site access area is included as part of the closure planprimarily as a security measure. Periodic inspection of the fencing will be performed by the US EPAand/or their contractors. Additional sampling of the adjacent wetlands is planned and the additionaldata and information will aid in determining the extent and placement of fencing.

Comment #5

Because of the unknown dangers of the air and soil gas exposures, testing for these should beaddressed immediately. Would summer temperatures and conditions affect soil gas screening testresults?

Response #5

A landfill perimeter gas survey is planned during the design phase to verify that soil gas is notmigrating outward from the landfill. This survey will be performed three times to confirm that thereis no outward migration of gas. The testing will not be performed when the ground is wet or has afrost layer, conditions which could alter test results. Summer temperatures/conditions would not beexpected to significantly alter soil gas screening test results provided proper field procedures arefollowed and the soils are unsaturated. The selected remedy calls for the development and monitoringof landfill gas vents throughout the landfill mound. Emissions from the vents will be monitored formethane, as well as other contaminants. If necessary, appropriate measures will be taken to treatemissions to ensure protection of human health and the environment.

Comment #6

As the continual testing of neighboring wells is a must, a schedule outlining this testing must bedeveloped. One resident suggested periodic automatic well testing. Since the possibility exists thatwells in this area could become contaminated, it is imperative that alternative measures be addressed. Monitoring wells at off-site locations seem to be needed given the levels of groundwatercontamination on-site.

Response #6

The remedial design work plan includes provisions for additional groundwater sampling from existingand proposed monitoring wells. One full round consisting of about 30 samples is proposed duringthe remedial design phase. A second partial round of sampling may be performed on selected wellsto monitor contaminant migration. This method of evaluating groundwater as a drinking watersource is preferred to continuously sampling private drinking water wells since then we would havesufficient information to initiate remedial action before a homeowner well is affected. Since existingdata do not show site-related contamination in local homeowner wells, provisions for interimmeasures, including treatment and alternative supplies, will not be addressed at this time.

Comment #7

The remediation process must take into account the exposure of nearby residences to contaminateddust. Plans must be developed to address the containment of that dust.

Response #7

Work area perimeter air monitoring will be monitored for dusts and organic vapors during fieldactivities to determine migration of contaminants from the work site. If monitoring indicate thatcontaminants at concentrations of concern are moving off-site, additional measures will be taken toassure that human exposures do not occur. Dust suppression methods will be used during remedialactivities involving the disturbance of soils at the site which should prevent the transport ofcontaminated soil to off-site areas.

Comment #8

During the comment period, a concern in regard to fire fighting at this site was discussed.

Response #8

This issue was addressed by the US EPA and is included in the Responsiveness Summary (Appendix5) entered in the Record of Decision for the site. According to the US EPA, available data do notindicate that fire fighters would be subjected to increased risks by going onto the site to fight a fire,above and beyond those that they might be subject to at another municipal landfill. Furthermore, theplacement of a multi-layer cap on the landfill will confine chemical wastes and hazardous materialswhich otherwise could be involved in a subterranean fire with limited cover material.

Comment #9

A plan must be developed to offer financial relief to homeowners for the possible loss of propertyvalues or the residents homes.

Response #9

Environmental liability and compensation issues are very complex and situation specific. These issuesneed to be addressed by independent counsel.

Comment #10

There must be a continuing education of the residents involving the potential pathways of exposuresto hazardous materials and treatment for the exposure.

Comment #11

What is the continuing mechanism to inform the residents of public hearings and other information.

Response #10 and #11

The proposed cleanup plan for the site will eliminate any potential pathways of exposure. The NYSDOH works with the US EPA and the NYS DEC to keep the public informed about the investigationand remediation at inactive hazardous waste sites. The outreach from the agencies to the communityusually occurs at project milestones. The US EPA has indicated that the public will be kept informedof the outcome of the remedial design efforts, including the development of the monitoring program,through meetings and the distribution of fact sheets. If you have health questions in the interim orin the future, please contact Ms. Nina Knapp of the NYS DOH Health Liaison Program at the tollfree number 1-800-458-1158, extension 402.

Comment #12

One resident indicated concern for wildlife, domestic pets, and people who may enter the landfill areaand adjacent wetlands.

Response #12

Fencing will be constructed around the perimeter of the landfill area and the access road prior toclosure of the landfill which should prevent animals and people from entering the contaminated areas.

Comment #13

More tests should be run and checks kept on this area in years to come to watch for dangerous healthhazards which may develop or have not yet been discovered.

Response #13

Additional investigations are planned as part of the remedial design and include the following: alandfill gas study, groundwater sampling, sampling of adjacent wetlands, fauna sampling, and soilsampling. In addition, a long-term post closure environmental monitoring program will be initiatedto confirm the effectiveness of the landfill closure and treatment systems. The US EPA will reviewthe site every five years to ensure that the remedy continues to be protective. This review will includea reassessment of health and environmental risks posed by the site.

Comment #14

What is the reason why testing data for surface soil sample SS-25 were rejected by QA? Will a newsample be collected?

Response #14

The summary data tables included in the RI only indicate that the organic analysis results wererejected by the QA/QC validation process. We will request the US EPA to obtain an answer andprovide it to the respondent. This sample was collected in an area east of an unpaved road across thesite where runoff from the southern area of the site (and possibly Disposal Area #8) might haveaccumulated. The remedial design work plan does not include resampling of surface soil near the SS-25 sampling location. However, additional investigation is planned at Disposal Area 8 to determinethe nature of the waste in this area as well as to define the extent of the disposal area. Test pits willbe excavated to determine, visually, if waste is present. If waste is encountered, samples of the wasteand surrounding soil will be collected and tested for chemical contamination.

Comment #15

Will a more scientific/rigorous survey be conducted regarding the relationship between the HertelLandfill site and the incidence and location of cancer-related deaths, miscarriages and birth defectsin the population that live downgradient of the site?

Response #15

The information and data developed in this public health assessment have been evaluated by ATSDR'sHealth Activities Recommendation Panel for appropriate follow-up with respect to health activities. The panel did not recommend health studies be conducted at this time because there is no evidencethat human exposure to site-related contamination is occurring or has occurred at levels which couldcause illness or injury. New environmental, toxicological, or health outcome data will be evaluatedby the ATSDR and NYS DOH as they become available to determine the need for additional actions(i.e., health studies) at this site.

Comment #16

A resident asked what will be done to control the migration of contaminants from the soil into thegroundwater and air.

Response #16

The US EPA has decided to cap the landfill. The landfill cap will contain the contamination withinthe landfill mound. The cap will prevent precipitation from percolating through the wastes, therebyreducing the flow of contaminants into the groundwater and surface water. The selected remedyincludes the installation of gas vents into the landfill mound. These vents will be constructed atappropriate locations into the cap to allow for the controlled escape of methane and other landfillgases. These vents minimize the potential for gases to migrate off-site through the soil. The gaseswill be monitored and controlled as needed. They also provide for groundwater monitoring wellswithin the landfill mound.

Table of Contents