Noncarcinogenic effects unlike carcinogenic effects are believed to have a threshold, that is, adose below which adverse effects will not occur. As a result, the current practice is to identify,usually from animal toxicology experiments, a no-observed-effect-level (NOEL). This is theexperimental exposure level in animals at which no adverse toxic effect is observed. The NOELis then divided by an uncertainty factor to yield the risk reference dose. The uncertainty factor isa number which reflects the degree of uncertainty that exists when experimental animal data areextrapolated to the general human population. The magnitude of the uncertainty factor takes intoconsideration various factors such as sensitive subpopulations (for example, children or theelderly), extrapolation from animals to humans, and the incompleteness of available data. Thus,the risk reference dose is not expected to cause health effects because it is selected to be muchlower than dosages that do not cause adverse health effects in laboratory animals.

The measure used to describe the potential for noncancer health effects to occur in an individualis expressed as a ratio of estimated contaminant intake to the risk reference dose. If exposure tothe contaminant exceeds the risk reference dose, there may be concern for potential noncancerhealth effects because the margin of protection is less than that afforded by the reference dose. As a rule, the greater the ratio of the estimated contaminant intake to the risk reference dose, thegreater the level of concern. A ratio equal to or less than one is generally considered aninsignificant (minimal) increase in risk.

APPENDIX E

SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS AND RESPONSES

This summary was prepared to respond the public's comments and questions on the 102nd StreetLandfill draft Public Health Assessment (PHA). The public was invited to review this documentduring the public comment period which ran from July 8, 1993 to August 13, 1993. However,because of requests for copies of the draft PHA toward the end of the comment period by thepublic, the comment period was extended until mid-September. Some comments have beenconsolidated or grouped together to incorporate similar concerns. If you have any questionsabout this responsiveness summary, contact the Health Liaison Program at the toll-free number1-800-458-1158, extension 402.

PUBLIC COMMENT

Only one comment was received from the public, as follows:

Comment

A sign should be posted at the public docks at Griffon Park to inform the public aboutcontamination from 102nd Street Landfill and the chances of getting skin reactions if launchingboats into the water.

Response

Contaminated sediments from the 102nd Street Landfill are close to the shoreline and do notextend very far beyond the western property line of the landfill. Therefore, people launchingboats from the docks at Griffon Park are unlikely to be exposed to contamination from the 102ndStreet Landfill.

COMMENTS FROM THE US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Comment #1

When referring to children at Griffon Park being exposed to contamination, it is not clearwhether this contamination is due to migration of surface contamination from the site orcontamination unrelated to the 102nd Street site.

Response #1

The data evaluated in this Public Health Assessment were gathered during the remedialinvestigation (RI) of the 102nd Street Landfill. There may be contamination at Griffon Parkfrom sources other than the 102nd Street Landfill; however, the 102nd Street Landfill is a sourceof contaminants in soil at Griffon Park. These contaminants were identified during the RI andare summarized in Table 11 of this public health assessment. To assess possible health impactsto the community, total exposures must be evaluated, even if contamination is from more thanone source.

Comment #2

There is no acknowledgement of the Record of Decision (ROD) or its contents.

Response #2

The ROD has been added to the References and a discussion of the elements of the ROD hasbeen incorporated in the text (Background Section).

Comment #3

Heavily contaminated sediments are going to be placed inside the slurry wall, thereby eliminatingthe need to excavate and incinerate.

Response #3

All references to incineration of sediments have been revised in the text.

Comment #4

Groundwater will only be recovered and treated to maintain an inward gradient across the slurrywall.

Response #4

The text has been revised to reflect that the purpose of groundwater recovery is to maintain aninward gradient across the slurry wall.

COMMENTS RECEIVED FROM OCCIDENTAL CHEMICAL CORPORATION AND OLIN CHEMICALS CORPORATION

Comment #1

OxyChem does not agree with the statement on page 2 of the Summary that "Exposures to site-related chemicals could cause an increased risk of cancer. Other health related problemsassociated with the site contaminants are neurological, liver and kidney effects." Thisdisagreement is based on the EPA/State approved Baseline Risk Assessments, Final Report(Sirrine, July 1990) which stated "The PHA determined that neither the individual exposureroutes nor the cumulative effects of the site present any significant risks to health under currentconditions."

Response #1

The comment implies that the EPA/State agreed with the conclusions of the OxyChem/Olinbaseline risk assessment (Sirrine, 1990). On the contrary, both agencies disagreed with some ofthe assumptions and the conclusions of the risk assessment. Subsequently, OxyChem/Olin wasrequired to incorporate EPA's Baseline Risk Assessment summary into the Feasibility Study(Sirrine, 1990). As discussed in Chapter 3 and Section 7 of the feasibility study, the EPA riskassessment used conservative but reasonable assumptions to evaluate "reasonable maximumexposures" and concluded that significant health risks could be associated with exposure to site-related contaminants. A significant human health risk was defined as one in one millionincremental increase in the chance of getting cancer. Additional information on how health riskswere evaluated and qualified in the Public Health Assessment has been included in Appendix D.

Comment #2

Descriptions of Olin's and OCC's wastes are incorrect and should be revised. The correctinformation can be found in the Consent Order for the Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study.

Response #2

The text has been revised. I have grouped OCC and Olin waste together since this site isconsidered one site and knowing who disposed of which wastes isn't important for thediscussions of potential public health exposures.

Comment #3

Please revise the last paragraph of Section B of the Background section to reflect that the NYSDOH health advisory on fish is based upon PCBs, which is not a contaminant at the 102nd StreetLandfill.

Response #3

The text has been revised to reflect that the fish advisory has been developed based upon concernfor chemicals which bioaccumulate in fish. The specific sources of these chemicals can notalways be identified.

Comment #4

There are many sources for chemicals that have bioaccumulated in fish caught in the NiagaraRiver or Lake Ontario. It is not appropriate to reference only 102nd Street Landfill when it isonly one of many sites that generate this concern. Analysis of fish from the upper Niagara Riverfor organochlorines will not provide data specific to discharges from the site due to the migratorynature of fish and the presence of other organochlorine sources along the upper Niagara River.

Response #4

The Public Health Assessment states that 102nd Street is not the sole contributor ofcontamination to the Niagara River. It also states that the current fish advisory is based uponPCB data, which is not a chemical of concern at 102nd Street Landfill. We agree thatorganochlorine analyses of fish caught in the upper Niagara River will not give specific data onthe impact of the landfill's discharges on fish. However, 102nd Street does contribute to the totalchemical loadings to the Niagara River. Discharges from the site, combined with loadings fromother sources could result in persons being exposed to contamination in fish at levels of publichealth concern. The Public Health Assessment evaluates total exposures to contamination at aspecific exposure point and may include both site-related and non-site-related contamination.

Comment #5

The last paragraph of the Background section, section B stating "fish from the Niagara River andLake Ontario have been monitored extensively..." conflicts with the previous paragraph whichrecommends further sampling and with the Pathway Analysis, section A, Fish, which states that"There are no analytical data for site specific compounds in fish from the Upper NiagaraRiver...".

Response #5

The word "extensively" has been removed. Many more fish from the lower Niagara River andespecially Lake Ontario have been analyzed than from the upper Niagara River. The fish areanalyzed for only a few chemicals and not most of the site-related chemicals.

Comment #6

It should be noted in the Public Health Implications section, subsection A, ToxicologicalEvaluation, item 3 that there is a Health Advisory on fish in place in order to protect humanhealth.

Response #6

The Health Advisory on eating fish caught in the Upper Niagara River has been mentioned inseveral places in the Public Health Assessment. This section discusses potential health effectsthat might occur from exposure to site related contamination through various pathways. Sincewe do not have site-specific fish data, we did not include the discussion of the Health Advisoryin this section.

Comment #7

The off-site soil sampling included analysis for 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (2,3,7,8-TCDD) and total TCDD. No other analyses for dioxin isomers or chlorinated dibenzofuranswere performed.

Response #7

The text has been revised to reflect these corrections.

Comment #8

The site has be fenced along Buffalo Avenue and on the western side of the site sincecommencement of landfilling, in the early 1940's, thus restricting access on those sides andexposure to on-site soils.

Response #8

This information has been included in the revised text. However, if access to the site was notrestricted on all the land bound sides of the site, then access to the site by the public could havebeen possible and the past exposure scenario remains correct. Furthermore, due to themaintenance and condition of this fence, it may not have been an effective barrier at all times.

Comment #9

Why has the public health hazard been described as "indeterminate" when the exposures werecharacterized and evaluated in the "Baseline Risk Assessment - Final Report" prepared by SirrineEnvironmental Consultants in July 1990 which was approved by the EPA/State including theNYS DOH. As stated in the Sirrine report, "The PHA determined that neither the individualexposure routes nor the cumulative effects of the site present any significant risks to humanhealth under current conditions."

Response #9

The Public Health Assessment evaluates both known (i.e., completed) and potential humanexposure scenarios for the past, current, and future. Human exposure pathways are consideredcomplete if there is an identified source of contamination, an environmental media which hasbeen contaminated from the source, an exposure point for humans, a route of human exposure(i.e., ingestion, inhalation),and an identified receptor population. If one or more of these factorsdoes not exist, then it may be considered as a potential pathway. Specific guidelines have beendeveloped by ATSDR to determine public health hazards that a site poses. Based on theinformation reviewed during development of the PHA, the site currently poses an indeterminatepublic health hazard because it is unknown to what extent persons may be exposed to surfacesoils off-site. Additionally, there is a potential for direct contact with or incidental ingestion ofcontaminated surface water, and contact with sediments or off-site surface soils. The majorpublic health concern is ingestion of fish caught in the Niagara River or Lake Ontario that havebioaccumulated contaminants from the 102nd Street Landfill. However, there are inadequatedata to assess the public health significance of past, present and potential exposures to sitecontaminants in fish. In addition, the comment implies that the EPA/State agreed with theconclusions of the OxyChem/Olin baseline risk assessment (Sirrine, 1990). Please refer to theresponse to comment #1 for a discussion of this issue.

Comment #10

Inhalation or ingestion of airborne soil particulates is unlikely. Such exposure is potentiallypossible during remedial activities. However, appropriate measures to control fugitive dustemissions will be implemented during the performance of remedial activities.

Response #10

We agree that dust is unlikely to be generated under current site conditions. However, in the pastthis was a possible exposure route. The text has been revised to clarify that exposure tocontaminated dusts and particulates may have occurred in the past.

Comment #11

Remediation of the area north of Buffalo Avenue was completed in November 1993. The subjectitem should be revised accordingly.

Response #11

This was incorporated in the Public Health Assessment.

Comment #12

Sediment "hot spots" are not going to be excavated and incinerated. They will be contained inplace.

Response #12

The text was revised accordingly.

Comment #13

On page 7, 4th full paragraph - Why is there concern related to surface water discharges to thenorth or west of the site?

Response #13

This section relates observations made during a site visit. These are observations made by thestaff person who conducted the visit and is considered as part of the historical record for the site. The exposure pathway analysis section discusses known potential human exposure routes ofconcern.

Comment #14

Page 10, 1st full paragraph, last sentence - Sediment sampling and analyses have shown that thecontamination is limited to within 300 feet of the shoreline and the sediments of the Little Riverhave not been impacted.

Response #14

This section is titled "Public Health Concerns" and discusses concerns that have been expressedby the public that may or may not have been address previously. Concern about dredging of theLittle River has been addressed in the Record of Decision and in this Public Health Assessment.

Comment #15

The site is not the only source of chemicals present in soils, groundwater, sewer water, andsediments of the Niagara River.

In addition, for many years the swale to the east was an open cesspool which discharged directlyto the River. The origin of the sewage was the trailer park to the northeast. The periodicdamming of the discharge by natural wave action at the river shore created a stagnant, opensewer which was the most significant health hazard at or near the site. The potential for diseasepathogens in the untreated, raw sewage and the many chemicals discharged in average householdeffluent specifically contributed to the sediment and surface water problems at the site.

Response #15

The text has been revised, where appropriate, to clarify that sources other than the 102nd Streetsite are contributing to contamination of the Niagara River.

The discharge from the ditch east of the site may have contributed to contamination in theNiagara River. However, household effluent is unlikely to contribute greater chemicalscontamination than the site. Therefore, this point will be mentioned, but not evaluated in thisPublic health Assessment.

Comment #16

The correct name for the "Energy Furnace" is "Energy from Waste" (EFW). The current owner isAmerican Ref-Fuel.

Response #16

The text has been revised.

Comment #17

Air data were collected during the Remedial Investigation activities (a "worst case" situation) anddid not show a problem. The data should be reviewed and the subject paragraph revisedaccordingly.

Response #17

Air was not specifically sampled as part of the Remedial Investigation. Air was monitored aspart of the health and safety activities. The purpose of this type of air monitoring is to warn ofany potential releases of site contamination so that corrective action can be taken. The "worstcase" situation would have been expected to have occurred during dumping activities at the site.

Comment #18

Prior to initiating any remedial activities, a Health and Safety Plan (HASP) will be in place tominimize the release of chemicals during the implementation of remedial activities at the site. Therefore, impacts during the performance of remedial activities will be negligible.

Response #18

A discussion of the past and proposed remedial measures to minimize public exposures to sitecontaminants is given in the Background section of this document. As part of the selectedremedial action, a Health and Safety Plan will be in place to minimize exposure to sitecontaminants by remedial workers and nearby residents, as mentioned in the Pathways section ofthis document.

Comment #19

The off-site soil survey performed during the site RI showed that the chemical presence inGriffon Park due to the site did not extend into the playing area of the two baseball diamonds. Since the chemical presence did not extend onto the baseball diamonds, the potential for dermalcontact by the baseball participants would have been minimal. In addition, the area which hasshown chemical presence was and is heavily vegetated and it is unlikely that exposure to dustparticulates occurred. This is supported by the Public Health Implications section which states initem 4 of Section A, "past exposures to these chemicals by the Little League baseball participantsand other park users at the highest concentrations found in the park's soil would pose a minimalhealth risk".

Response #19

We agree that site contaminants were not found in most of the samples collected in the area ofthe baseball diamonds. However, from the diagrams provided in the RI, some site-relatedcontaminants were found in the area of the baseball diamonds. Since most of the samplescollected from the baseball diamonds have not contained site-related contaminants, thediscussion of human exposure via this pathway will be changed from a completed pathway to apotential pathway for past exposure to site-related contamination.

Comment #20

The area north of Buffalo Avenue is on the NYS DOH "not habitable" list and the Love CanalArea Revitalization Agency's (LCARA's) current plans are to convert this area into an open area. There are no plans to re-habit the area. Conversion to an open area will not occur until remedialactivities are completed. Olin has control of the house immediately east of the site through a 99year lease. It has been vacant for several years.

Response #20

These points are noted and the text has been revised where appropriate.

Comment #21

The statement of the Toxicological Evaluation section, item 2, that "exposures...would pose aminimal health risk to (persons exposed to surface soils at Griffon Park)" should be incorporatedinto the Conclusions section, item 2(c).

Response #21

The text will be revised accordingly. The Toxicological Evaluation section will be used to reviseall relevant conclusions.

Comment #22

OxyChem and Olin should be placed on the mailing list for the annual follow-ups to the PublicHealth Assessment.

Response #22

OxyChem and Olin will be placed on the appropriate mailing lists.