PUBLIC HEALTH ASSESSMENT

WASTE INC. LANDFILL
MICHIGAN CITY, LA PORTE COUNTY, INDIANA

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

Figure 1. Site Location Map

Figure 2. Soil Sample Locations

Figure 3. Round One Monitoring Well Locations

Figure 4. Round Two Monitoring Well Locations

Figure 5. Rain Water and Storm Runoff/Leachate Sample Locations

Figure 6. Stream Sampling Cross Sections

APPENDIX B

On-Site Subsurface Soil Sample Results, August/October 1989

Chemical	Sample No.	Sample Depth (Feet)	Concentration Range - ppb	Comparison Value
				ppb	Source
acenaphthene	WIE041S WI0031S	2-4	70-250	100,000	RMEG
acenaphthylene	WI0031S	2-4	63	-	*
acetone	WIN071S	30.5-33	32-140	400,000	RMEG
anthracene	WIF011S WI0031S	0-4	49-410	600,000	RMEG
aroclor-1242	WI0031S	2-4	4,400	100	RMEG
aroclor-1260	WI0031S	2-4	2,200	100	RMEG
benzene	WIH131S	30.5-33	7	20,000	CREG
benzo(a)anthracene	WII011S WII0031S	2-5	60-1,400	-	*
benzo(b)fluoranthene	WII011S WII0031S	2-10	98-2,000	-	*
benzo(k)fluoranthene	WII011S WII0031S	2-10	98-2,000	-	*
benzo(g,h,i)perylene	WII011S WI0031S	2-10	53-470	-	*
benzoic acid	WIF011SR WIL111S	0-7	44-490	8,000,000	RMEG
bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate	WIH131S WI0031S	2-33	550-6,200	50,000	CREG
chloroform	WIF101S	2-5	3	20,000	EMEG
chrysene	WIF101S WII0031S	2-4	65-1,100	-	*
dibenzofuran	WIE041S WI0031S	2-4	79-190	-	*
1,2-dichloroethene (total)	WIH131S	30.5-33	37	46,000	RMEG
2,4-dimethylphenol	WI0031S	2-4	52	40,000	RMEG
di-n-butylphthalate	WIE041S	2-4	2,700	1,000,000	EMEG
Chemical	Sample No.	Sample Depth (Feet)	Concentration Range - ppb	Comparison Value
				ppb	Source
ethylbenzene	WIH131S WIH131SDL	30.5-33	1,400-230,000	200,000	RMEG
fluoranthene	WII011S WI0031S	2-10	100-2,100	80,000	RMEG
fluorene	WIE041S WI0031S	2-4	100-240	80,000	RMEG
2-methylnaphthalene	WIM011S WIH131S	8-33	43-670	-	*
2-methylphenol	WIE041S	2-4	81	-	*
4-methylphenol	WIE041S WIH131S	2-33	89-300	5,000	OSHA
naphthalene	WIM011S WIH131S	8-33	43-2,500	10,000	OSHA
3-nitroaniline	WI0031S	2-4	2,000	-	*
4-nitrophenol	WIN071S	2-4	240	-	*
n-nitrosodiphenylamine	WIF011SR	0-2	86	100,000	CREG
phenanthrene	WIM011S WI0031S	2-10	51-1,900	-	*
phenol	WI0031S WIE041S	2-4	190-360	1,000,000	RMEG
pyrene	WIF101S WI0031S	2-5	94-2,400	60,000	RMEG
toluene	WIH131SDL	30.5-33	82,000	400,000	RMEG
total xylenes	WIE041S WIH131SDL	2-33	3-890,000	400,000	EMEG
trichloroethene	WIH131S	30.5-33	31	100,000	OSHA
			(ppm)
aluminum	WIL111S WI0031S	2-7	1,100-15,000	-	*
antimony	WIL111S WI0031S	2-4	16	0.8	RMEG
Chemical	Sample No.	Sample Depth (Feet)	Concentration Range - ppm	Comparison Value
				ppm	Source
arsenic	WIF011S WI0031S	0-4	3-12	0.6	EMEG
barium	WIN071S WIH131S	2-33	54-206	100	RMEG
beryllium	WIF011SR	0-2	1	0.2	CREG
cadmium	WIF011SP WI0031S	0-4	2-28	1	EMEG
calcium	WII011S WI0031S	2-10	2,050-325,000	-	*
chromium	WIL111S WI0031S	2-7	3-115	10	RMEG
cobalt	WI0031S	2-4	22	-	*
copper	WIH131S WI0031S	2-33	9-1,670	-	*
cyanide	WI0031S	2-4	2	40	RMEG
iron	WIL111S WI0031S	2-7	3,740-94,000	-	*
lead	WIM011S WI0031S	2-7	9-624	-	*
magnesium	WIE041S WIN071S	2-4	4,350-18,200	-	*
manganese	WIL111S WI0031S	2-7	69-1,280	10	RMEG
mercury	WIM011S WI0031S	2-10	<1-8	-	*
nickel	WIN071S WI0031S	2-4	17-156	40	RMEG
potassium	WIN071S	2-4	2,200	-	*
vanadium	WIF011S WIF101S	0-5	11-36	6	EMEG
zinc	WIL111S WI0031S	2-7	23-1,960	600	RMEG

* No comparison value available

On-Site Groundwater Sample Results, Rounds I & II, May 1990/January 1991.

Chemical	Sample No.	Concentration Range - ppb	Comparison Value
			ppb	Source
(Round I)
benzene	WIMW5D	11	1	CREG
bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate	WIMW5D	2	3	CREG
chloroethane	WIMW5D	47	-	*
diethylphthalate	WIMW10D	3	8,000	RMEG
methylene chloride	WIMW1D WIMW2S	2-29	600	EMEG
toluene	WIMW8S	2	2,000	RMEG
(Round II)
acenaphthene	WIMW4I	9	600	RMEG
acetone	WIMW82D	6	2,000	EMEG
anthracene	WIMW4I	3	3,000	RMEG
aroclor-1254	WIMW8S	2	0.7	RMEG
benzo(a)anthracene	WIMW4I	6	0.1	MCL
benzo(b)fluoranthene	WIMW4I	7	0.2	MCL
benzoic acid	WIMW3S WIMW5S	2-17	40,000	RMEG
chrysene	WIMW4I	9	0.2	MCL
dibenzofuran	WIMW4I	7	-	*
1,2-dichloroethene (total)	WIMW10S	2	200	RMEG
ethylbenzene	WIMW3D	4	1,000	RMEG
fluoranthene	WIMW4I	11	400	RMEG
fluorene	WIMW4I	7	400	RMEG
2-methylnaphthalene	WIMW4I	16	-	*
4-methylphenol	WIMW4I WIMW5S	2-4	-	*
naphthalene	WIMW4I	9	20	LTHA
n-nitrosodiphenylamine	WIMW4I	16	7	CREG
phenanthrene	WIMW4I2	22	-	*
pyrene	WIMW4I	11	300	RMEG
1,1,1-trichloroethane	WIMW10S	9	200	LTHA
total xylenes	WIMW4I	19	2,000	EMEG

* No comparison value available

On-Site Groundwater Sample Results for Dissolved Inorganic Chemicals (Rounds I & II), May 1990/January 1991

Chemical	Sample No.	Concentration Range - ppb	Comparison Value
			ppb	Source
(Round I)
aluminum	WIMW1S WIMW1S	338	-	*
barium	WIMW5D WIMW8S	472	700	RMEG
calcium	WIMW1S WIMW2S	25,600-110,000	-	*
iron	WIMW8D WIMW5D	190	-	*
magnesium	WIMW1S WIMW6D WIMW5D	5,010-68,100	-	*
manganese	WIMW1S WIMW10S	29-980	50	RMEG
nickel	WIMW5D	45	200	RMEG
potassium	WIMW10S WIMW5D	6,640-66,400	-	*
sodium	WIMW1D WIMW5D	9,520-178,000	20,000	MEMO
(Round II)
aluminum	WIMW8D WIMW1S	39-1,890	-	*
arsenic	WIMW5I WIMW4I	3-219	3	EMEG
barium	WIMW8D WIMW6D WIMW6I WIMW8S	2-594	700	RMEG
calcium	WIMW3D WIMW6D WIMW6I WIMW2S	65-179,000	-	*
cobalt	WIMW5S	10	-	*
copper	WIMW1S WIMW3D	3-9	1,300	MCL
iron	WIMW5I WIMW2I	43-31,100	-	*
magnesium	WIMW8D WIMW6D WIMW6I WIMW4I	59-86,000	-	*
manganese	WIMW8D WIMW6I WIMW2S	1-1,900	50	RMEG
nickel	WIMW3I WIMW4I	11-86	200	RMEG
sodium	WIMW3D WIMW6D WIMW6I WIMW4I	731-306,000	20,000	MEMO
vanadium	WIMW10S	7	30	EMEG

* No comparison value available

On-Site Groundwater Sample Results for Total Inorganic Chemicals (Rounds I & II), May 1990/January 1991

Chemical	Sample No.	Concentration Range - ppb	Comparison Value
			ppb	Source
(Round I)
aluminum	WIMW5D WIMW1S	1,040-230,000	-	*
arsenic	WIMW8S WIMW1S	21-445	3	EMEG
barium	WIMW10S WIMW8S	364-1,370	700	RMEG
beryllium	WIMW1S	13-15	0.008	CREG
chromium	WIMW1D WIMW1S	10-409	100	LTHA
cobalt	WIMW10S WIMW1S	53-247	-	*
copper	WIMW10D WIMW8S	31-1,740	1,300	MCL
iron	WIMW8D MIMW1S	7,420-515,000	-	*
lead	WIMW5D WIMW6D WIMW8S	6-1,900	15	MCL
magnesium	WIMW8D WIMW5S	23,900-107,000	-	*
mercury	WIMW10D	<1	-	*
nickel	WIMW5S WIMW1S	44-505	200	RMEG
potassium	WIMW1D WIMW5D	5,340-83,900	-	*
silver	WIMW8S	11	50	RMEG
sodium	WIMW1D WIMW6D WIMW5D	12,600-231,000	20,000	MEMO
vanadium	WIMW10S WIMW1S	98-592	30	EMEG
zinc	WIMW8D WIMW8S	60-3,600	3,000	RMEG
(Round II)
antimony	WIMW4I	65	4	RMEG
cyanide	WIMW4I	15	200	RMEG
potassium	WIMW3D WIMW6I WIMW4I	2,840-96,200	-	*
sodium	WIMW3D WIMW6I WIMW4I	466-292,000	20,000	MEMO
zinc	WIMW3D WIMW6I WIMW4I	20-7,070	3,000	RMEG

* No comparison value available

Off-Site Storm Water Runoff and Leachate Sample Results, May 1990.

Chemical	Sample No.	Concentration Range - ppb	Comparison Value
			ppb	Source
DISSOLVED INORGANIC CHEMICALS
arsenic	WISW51L	11	3	EMEG
barium	WISW31L WISW51L	273-427	700	RMEG
calcium	WISW21L WISW31L	61,500-81,600	-	*
iron	WISW21L WISW51L	299-5,300	-	*
magnesium	WISW21L WISW41L	29,900-134,000	-	*
manganese	WISW21L WISW31L	182-659	50	RMEG
nickel	WISW31L WISW41L	87-120	200	RMEG
potassium	WISW21L WISW51L	9,790-139,000	-	*
sodium	WISW21L WISW51L	85,100-750,000	20,000	MEMO
TOTAL INORGANIC CHEMICALS
aluminum	WISW21L WISW51L	232-281	-	*
arsenic	WISW51L	25	3	EMEG
barium	WISW31L WISW51L	382-821	700	RMEG
calcium	WISW21L WISW31L	61,900-77,500	-	*
copper	WISW31L	82	1,300	MCL
cyanide	WISW31L WISW41L	23-162	200	RMEG
iron	WISW41L WISW51L	5,720-32,000	-	*
lead	WISW41L WISW31L	4-8	15	MCL
magnesium	WISW21L WISW41L	28,600-125,000	-	*
manganese	WISW21L WISW31L	211-687	50	RMEG
nickel	WISW41L WISW51L	101-114	200	RMEG
potassium	WISW21L WISW51L	9,670-134,000	-	*
sodium	WISW21L WISW51L	81,300-706,000	20,000	MEMO
zinc	WISW41L WISW31L	106-482	3,000	RMEG

* No comparison value available

Off-Site Surface Water Sample Results, June 1987

Chemical	Cross Section	Concentration Range - ppb	Comparison Value
			ppb	Source
aluminum	2 & 1	55-434	-	*
arsenic	2	4	3	EMEG
barium	2 & 8	56-72	700	RMEG
bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate	8-7	4-7	3	CREG
calcium	1 & 8	64,300-74,000	-	*
chromium	1	44	100	LTHA
copper	2 & 1	9-15	1,300	MCL
cyanide	1 & 2	21	200	RMEG
iron	1	1,390	-	*
lead	2 & 3	3-63	15	MCL
magnesium	1 & 8	19,700-23,400	-	*
manganese	8 & 1	49-141	50	RMEG
mercury	7 & 1	<1-1	-	*
nickel	1 & 2	32	200	RMEG
sodium	8 & 2	14,550-26,300	20,000	MEMO
zinc	7 & 1	15-68	3,000	RMEG

* No comparison value available

Off-Site Stream Sediment Organic Chemicals Sample Results, June 1987

Chemical	Cross Section	Concentration Range - ppb	Comparison Value
			ppb	Source
acenaphthene	3 & 1	77-92	100,000	RMEG
anthracene	2	71	600,000	RMEG
benzo(a)anthracene	1	210	-	*
benzo(a)pyrene	3 & 1	110-400	-	*
benzo(k)fluoranthene	1	1,000	-	*
benzoic acid	3	3,500	8,000	RMEG
bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate	3 & 1	1,400-11,000	50,000	CREG
2-butanone	1 & 2	10-17	-	*
butylbenzylphthalate	1	180	400,000	RMEG
chloroform	6	2	20,000	EMEG
chrysene	3 & 1	160-540	-	*
4,4'-DDD	1	65	20,000	EMEG
fluoranthene	1	940	80,000	RMEG
fluorene	2 & 1	64-220	80,000	RMEG
2-methylnaphthalene	3 & 1	100-540	-	*
2-methylphenol	1	100	-	*
4-methylphenol	2	1,800	5,000	OSHA
naphthalene	3 & 1	150-400	-	*
phenanthrene	1	740	-	*
phenol	2 & 3	160-1,200	1,000,000	RMEG
pyrene	1	900	60,000	RMEG
toluene	1	250	400,000	RMEG

* No comparison value available

Off-Site Stream Sediment Inorganic Chemical Sample Results, June 1987

Chemical	Cross Section	Concentration Range - ppm	Comparison Value
			ppm	Source
aluminum	2 & 1	2,430-6,260	-	*
arsenic	2 & 5	3 - 10	0.6	EMEG
barium	6 & 1	31 - 257	100	RMEG
beryllium	1	1	0.2	CREG
cadmium	3 & 1	7-47	1	EMEG
calcium	6	2,700	-	*
chromium	7 & 1	15-137	10	RMEG
copper	6 & 1	20-201	-	*
cyanide	2 & 1	4-19	40	RMEG
iron	2 & 7	9,870-29,300	-	*
lead	5 & 1	28-72	-	*
magnesium	2 & 1	5,030-11,700	-	*
manganese	2 & 7	337-1,500	10	RMEG
mercury	1 & 2	<1	-	*
nickel	6 & 1	14-37	40	RMEG
vanadium	2	5	6	EMEG
zinc	6 & 1	95-974	600	RMEG

* No comparison value available

Off-Site Groundwater Sample Results, January 1991 (Rounds I & II)

Chemical	Sample No.	Concentration Range - ppb	Comparison Value
			ppb	Source
benzoic acid	WIMW6I	11	40,000	RMEG
bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate	WIMW13S	5	3	CREG
butylbenzyl phthalate	WIMW13S	5	2,000	RMEG

Off-Site Groundwater Sample Results for Dissolved Inorganic Chemicals (Rounds I & II) May 1990/January 1991.

Chemical	Sample No.	Concentration Range - ppb	Comparison Value
			ppb	Source
arsenic	MW13D MW14D	3-4	3	EMEG
barium	MW13S MW14I	17-88	700	RMEG
calcium	MW13D MW14I	33,400-71,300	-	*
iron	MW13D MW13S	23-100	-	*
magnesium	MW13D MW14D	9,200-25,700	-	*
manganese	MW13D MW14I	11-285	50	RMEG
potassium	WIMW13D WIMW4I	933-3,470	-	*
sodium	MW13S MW6D	12,400-37,960	20,000	MEMO
zinc	WIMW13S	4	3,000	RMEG

* No comparison value available

Off-Site Groundwater Sample Results for Total Inorganic Chemicals (Rounds I & II) May 1990/January 1991

Chemical	Sample No.	Concentration Range - ppb	Comparison Value
			ppb	Source
aluminum	MW6D MW13S	3,320-277,000	-	*
arsenic	MW14D MW13S	25-466	3	EMEG
barium	MW13D MW13S	102-1,570	700	RMEG
beryllium	MW13S	16	0.008	CREG
cadmium	MW6D MW13S	7-9	7	EMEG
calcium	MW13S MW14D	68,900-402,000	-	*
chromium	MW13D MW13S	13-507	100	LTHA
cobalt	MW6I MW13S	15-295	-	*
copper	MW14I MW13S	92-539	1,300	MCL
iron	MW6D MW13S	7,980-900,000	-	*
lead	MW13S	6-569	15	MCL
magnesium	MW6I MW14D	27,500-162,000	-	*
manganese	MW6D MW13S WIMW1SGW	290-25,000	50	RMEG
mercury	MW13S	1	-	*
nickel	MW13D MW13S	13-553	200	RMEG
potassium	MW6I MW13S	570-34,400	-	*
sodium	MW13S MW14I	6,220-32,300	20,000	MEMO
vanadium	MW13D MW13S	23-868	30	EMEG
zinc	MW6D MW13S	113-2,220	3,000	RMEG

* No comparison value available

APPENDIX C

COMMENTS & RESPONSES

1.	COMMENT	If you know that this site is not the cause of cancer increase, please identify what the cause for our increased cancer rate.
	RESPONSE	The data that we reviewed did not indicate that individuals exposed at the estimated exposure doses would experience any significant increase in cancer. However, please recall that we identified data gaps (page 37). Although we are concerned about the health of the community, it is important to note that the focus and purpose of this document is to determine the adverse health effects caused by this site on the community.
2.	COMMENT	We urge you to find resources to continue the monitoring of fish tissues.
	RESPONSE	We agree that there is the continued need for fish tissue sampling in all Indiana rivers and streams; however, this request is beyond the scope and purpose of this document.
3.	COMMENT	The residence within 100 yards of the site should be included in the background section on page 2.
	RESPONSE	Wherever appropriate, this residence has been added to the document.
4.	COMMENT	We request a copy of the Court Order (Injunction) in 1993 which closed the site.
	RESPONSE	We do not have a copy of the Court Order. As this order was probably initiated by IDEM, I would suggest contacting the IDEM to obtain a copy.
5.	COMMENT	Why were no new samples required by ATSDR to confirm the allegations of illegal dumping occurring in 1988?
	RESPONSE	The recommendations made by ATSDR included collecting further sampling information which would pass acceptable quality control/quality assurance procedures, and obtaining additional information on site-related chemicals and any chemicals released off-site. Please see page 4 paragraph 1.
6.	COMMENT	Why were no samples taken of the drums seen on-site?
	RESPONSE	The drums that were seen throughout the site were all empty. The drums seen in the old office building contained decontamination water from drilling/sampling. In the event that we would like to know the contents of a drum or barrel, we would request either IDEM or EPA to sample for us. We do not perform any environmental sampling.
7.	COMMENT	Samples of the oil-type sheen observed on Trail Creek should be taken, and the storm sewer must be replaced.
	RESPONSE	The sampling of this media would not change the conclusions and recommendations of this Public Health Assessment. There is a fish advisory on Trail Creek, and we recommend that necessary actions be taken to prevent local population exposure to site-related contaminants (see page 38).
8.	COMMENT	The results of the door-to-door survey by the Minority Health Coalition of LaPorte County should be included. Also, the well at International Friendship Gardens should be tested.
	RESPONSE	We will request this information from the organization. However, it will not be a part of this document as the public comment period for this document is over. Please see page 7 regarding the well at International Friendship Gardens.
9.	COMMENT	The odd childhood cancers reported during the last public meeting should be investigated.
	RESPONSE	A health study is planned for this community to investigate adverse health effects, including odd childhood cancers.
10.	COMMENT	What about the Indiana Cancer Registry?
	RESPONSE	Data from the Indiana Cancer Registry was reviewed. The results of this review are contained on page 31.
11.	COMMENT	Where did you get the off-site comparisons?
	RESPONSE	The location of the off-site sample data is noted in the document. (Please see page 15, OFF-SITE CONTAMINATION.)
12.	COMMENT	Please identify the companies described on page 9, especially the one that showed emissions of either chromium in groundwater or nickel compounds in the air.
	RESPONSE	Please contact your local EPA office and request the latest publication of their Toxic Release Inventory. The specific companies are listed in this publication.
13.	COMMENT	Please identify the scientific basis for identifying "chemicals of concern".
	RESPONSE	This is discussed on page 8 of the document.
14.	COMMENT	Please identify the suspected source of dibenzofuran.
	RESPONSE	That is beyond the scope of this document. We have identified that the chemical was found in the on-site well; its source is unknown at this time.
16.	COMMENT	Why were only two rounds of sampling taken?
	RESPONSE	The ISDH does not determine the number of rounds of sampling that other agencies performs at a site. This document only reports the information that was available to us at the time of the writing of this document. We suggest referring this comment to the EPA.
17.	COMMENT	If intermediate wells were installed after Round I, how were 21 SVOCs detected during Rounds I and II?
	RESPONSE	The information was reviewed and appropriate changes were made to the document.
18.	COMMENT	Are all organic chemicals of concern on page 14?
	RESPONSE	Please see the first paragraph under Deep Wells.
19.	COMMENT	Your description of detection of no chemicals at levels of concern in storm water and leachate contradicts all previous site descriptions, why? Please provide us with your analysis of these values with Indiana Water Quality Standards.
	RESPONSE	The data was reviewed and appropriate changes were made to the document. Comparison values are provided to us by the ATSDR. These values are not compared to the Indiana Water Quality Standards. We select contaminants of concern based on comparative analyses with health guidelines, multi-media exposures, interactive effects, and community health concerns.
21.	COMMENT	We understand that there were problems with the original sediment samples as part of the RI/FS test of the Confined Disposal Facility. Please explain why some of the samples were unacceptable.
	RESPONSE	It is our understanding that there were some sediment samples taken by IDEM prior to the Remedial Investigation (RI); therefore, it would not have been included in the RI. This information will be requested and evaluated. Please note, however, that the results from this data would more than likely not change the conclusions and recommendations of this document as sediment is already considered a completed exposure pathway for individuals who eat fish taken from Trail Creek and those who participate in recreational activities at Trail Creek.
22.	COMMENT	Since deep groundwater flow is to Lake Michigan, the lead found in the deep well may be from the site.
	RESPONSE	This comment was reviewed and appropriate changes were made to the document.
23.	COMMENT	Please include the test results for lead. This information should be included along with the other chemicals identified in fish tissue samples from Trail Creek.
	RESPONSE	This information has been reviewed and appropriate changes made.
24.	COMMENT	There should be a discussion of bioaccumulation as an exposure route.
	RESPONSE	In determining exposures, bioaccumulation was taken into consideration.
25.	COMMENT	All fish tissue was sampled for chlordane, dieldrin, lead, DDT, DDE and other compounds; this information should be included.
	RESPONSE	This information was reviewed and the relevant section in the document was re-written.
26.	COMMENT	Air sampling should be done.
	RESPONSE	We agree with this comment. (Please see the Conclusions section of the Public Health Assessment.)
27.	COMMENT	How can your calculations include a child drinking 1 liter per day for 43 years? That sure would be an old child.
	RESPONSE	The narrative was reviewed, and appropriate changes were made to the document.
28.	COMMENT	Please identify the areas where background soil has 10,000 - 300,000 ppb lead.
	RESPONSE	These numbers were obtained from the United States Geological Survey Table. This table gives mean concentrations, deviations, and ranges of elements in samples of soil in the conterminous United States.
29.	COMMENT	Please review Dr. Rotkin's Cancer study on LaPorte County, especially the soft tissue, rare cancers he identified.
	RESPONSE	This study was reviewed as stated under the Community Health Concerns Evaluation section of the document.
30.	COMMENT	The information from the public relating to childhood cancer should be included.
	RESPONSE	This most valuable information will be added to the document and will be used in the Planned Community Health Study.
31.	COMMENT	It should be documented that heptachlor was detected by the FIT in both the on-site well and the raw water intake for Michigan City.
	RESPONSE	The FIT report of December 14, 1983, indicates that the results of 2 weeks of samples showed the presence of heptachlor above EPA drinking water standards. It also indicates that this chemical is not attributed to the industrial work of this site because it is an insecticide widely used by midwest farmers.
32.	COMMENT	Please provide us with the review of Dr. Rotkin's report by experts in the cancer field.
	RESPONSE	A copy of the review will be provided.
33.	COMMENT	Please include an estimate for exposure to people eating produce from gardens.
	RESPONSE	One of the data gaps mentioned in the Public Health Assessment is the lack of off-site surface soil samples. Estimated ingestion exposure doses cannot be determined without this information.
34.	COMMENT	Please put signs along the waterway warning people of the fish consumption advisory.
	RESPONSE	Although this may appear to be the solution to warning the community about the fish in Trail Creek, there are some practical and economical reasons why this is not done. We have found that signs along waterways prove more to be targets for vandalism than anything else. We do not have the funds to purchase warning signs, nor do we have the staff to install and maintain any warning signs. Individuals are warned, however, through the fish advisory which is given to each person getting their license to fish.
35.	COMMENT	Please let drinking water well users know about this issue.
	RESPONSE	It is our understanding that there are no private wells within a 1-mile radius that are being used for drinking water. We will, however, contact all owners of private wells and inform them of the potential dangers of using their wells for drinking purposes.
36.	COMMENT	The Indiana State Department of Health must support the cleanup alternative most protective of public health and the environment.
	RESPONSE	Our role is not one of risk management, but of protecting human health. It would be inappropriate for this agency to support one cleanup alternative over another. The role of the Environmental Epidemiology Section of the Indiana State Department of Health is to make recommendations to the appropriate agencies to ensure that the health of a community is not adversely affected by toxic chemicals emitted, spilled, or naturally occurring in the environment.

Table of Contents