4. ~ . II

--~ ~"":::'....':! -Cooloo!."'o.:..O.:.::....o.=:::::"'..~o.·"· -~~~···••""'o.=:-=:..:-ll=:-.,::.G...,.

..._~............. "'­-

CT WASTE MANAGEMENT DIVISION

June a, 1988

Margaret Velie u. s. Environmental Protection Agency Waste Management Division HEC-CAN 16 JFK Federal Building Boston, Massachusetts 02203

Dear Ms. Veliez

On behalf of the Pollution Extennination Group, Inc. (PEG), ve ofCer the following comments on the feasibility study for the Lau r el Park landfill, Naugatuck, Connect icut .

INADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC COIIMENT

While ve do not wish to delay l•ple•entation of the remedy, the public haa a right to rea1onable notice and a r~~eaningful opportunity to comment on the proposed retnedy under CERCLA Section• 113(k) (2) (B) and 117(a). Thirty

" days to evaluate the final remedy for the nuflber one Superfund site in the State fro• a document 300 pages long and which considers 11 alternatives baaed upon a volu•e of technical data from a variety of scientific fields is not reasonable. We bearly had time to identify expects , obtain copies of the FS and distribute them to the expects •

As it is, EPA's final decision to be embodied in the R.o.o. in about one nonth cannot be rendered in time tOe

=..:.=~ =~~ao~~gni~~ca~~Yco~:!!~ct~~~ ~:nt=~~1 ~l~~=ti~~~!ngun~h!: ....,_-.... Section lU (a) (1) or (c) or order responsible parties to --"'-' conduct under CERCLA Section 106 (a) emergency relief to

'-:;'..;,:::- "'- alleviate imminent threats to health and the environment, ,__ -..- such as the site fencing for security discussed below. _,_~'4'hus, there is no reason for EPA not to give the public ~= ample time to participate in the development of the final

v-~.._,_ ~=:~dys~~f!~isi~it~he =~!~~e~rh::!th 1~~~ t~:r:nv!!~~me:~ extension of the comment period to be grented.

C.ntr•t f52 Tfmpl• SttHt • NfwH8vel\ ConntelleutOfJ510 • 203 717-oe4fJ Bt•nch: 32 Or8nd StrHt • H8rtford Connec:tleut 041 OfJ • 203·524· I fJ3i

Given the short notice, the ending of many school's academic years and the three-day holiday during the period, we had to find two replacement experts within the last week to produce these comments . Those experts having to withdraw from commentinq informed me on June 2 that another month would have given them sufficient time to partic ipate. However, that same day, you had denied our request for an extension of time for comment without even discussing its written basis in my letter of May 6, while citing a basis which I never advanced . See attached letter from me to you dated May 6, 1988 .

While it has studied the problem, EPA has listed Laurel Park on the National Priorities List (of the most hazardous sites in the country) for 7 years and the number 1 site in Connecticut for 5 years. Meanwhile, landfill area residents have been drinking and washing in water known since 1983 to be contaminated with a va riety of cancinogens and toxic chemicals. EPA gave itself and Uniroyal extensions throughout the investigation and development of the solution. It would be only fair to give the public equal treataent. EPA should reconsider its denial of our request for an extension of time for public comment and consider granting a one ..onth extension i•ediately.

C) No doubt, had we had more time, we could have prepared JICHe detailed conuaenta which would, in turn, have been .ore helpful to EPA in responding to our concerns. However, qiven the con1trainta under which we were forced to evaluate the reaulta of a study which EPA and Uniroyal took 3 years to coaplete, includin9 a 2 year extension, we have addreaed the aajor ilauea from the standpoint of the over 50 residences in the vicinity of the landfill inhabited by PEG members.

QUALIFICATIONS OF EXPERTS

In the preparation of these comments we have used the advice of the following categories of expert consultants1 (1) hydrolOC)iats and geoloqiats familiar with groundwater contamination and thia particular aiteJ {2) todcoloqiats specializinq in the cheaicala of concern at this Bite and familiar with hazardous wastes site evaluation, and {3) pollution engineerinq specialists.

SHORTCOMINGS OF THE FEASIBILITY STUDY

The feasibility study (PS) conducted for Uniroyal, the responsible party, by Malcolm Pirnie addresses the resulting from over 30 years of waste disposal at one most ill-chosen sites for such an enterprise in this

primary situation

of the country.

~ ~ zr H]> V>C_,, J>r "'"'_, H"t) <l>

"'"' :o " n "' 0 :0 0

The landfill sits at the top of a rock formation with little or no till to provide filtration before runoff and leachate reach the over 50 residences, most using well water. The stated result is that all of the aquifer downstream, virtually the entire immediate area, is subject to contamination by the ,.downward migration of hazardous materials from the site. ~

zr deficiencies or underestimates of potential hazard are ... , While the genenl problema are identified in the FS, several Hl>

V>C

incorporated in this document and in the associated endanger11ent asaessment (EA). To the extent that EPA lacks the facta, in "'"' ...l> r

addition to corcecting the record , any analysis or conclusions H"tl

founded upon those facta must be revised before EPA can <l>

rationally determi ne the final remedy . Specifically , the PS "'"' :0 " f ails in three areas t o document and analyze keys t o t he probl em and solution at Laurel Park: 1) exposure estimation, 2) cancer "' 8 r iak a ssessment, and 3) effectiveness of recommended action. e: Exposure Estimation

The s ources of exposure whch are laid out in the PS aust be qualified in two ways . In presenting what is depicted as both a like ly and •conservative• evaluation of exposure levels resulting from well contamination , observed contuination •..ana• and aaxiauu• are cited. The value of such data aay be • ialeading. Leaching of material froa a waste s ite does not occur at a unifona rate, rather, aaterial leaches out in •pulees•. Theee •pulees• occur when large quantitiea of water are introduced into the aquif er, such as during a heavy rainfall or the rapid Jlelting of snow. This incr eased aaount of wate r leads to a t emporary inc r ease of out-• igration of material f ro• the site and inte rmittently e l evated l eve ls of leachate ente ring the aquifer. Thus , in the absence of long-term monitoring and c orrelation with groundwater condi t i ons , the act ual his toric l evels of contaminat i on present i n t he drinki ng water a re only very crude ly modeled by the limited sampling of residential wells.

Section 5.1.1 of the EA contains the second aspect of the exposure estimation that is likely to have been incorrect. In the section on non-drinking water use, airborne exposures as the result of release of volatiles into the air were considered to last for only twenty minutes, the length of a shower. Andelman, (Science of the Total Environment, 1985t47t443-460) has shown in a recent study that expopsure resulting from showering is likely to persist over a longer period of time. The empirical measurements presented suggest that the EA data could

"-...~ underestimate exposure from this source by as much as 10-fold.

r

Third, despite the implementation of a comp r ehensive cont ainment of the site (Alternaitves 2 or 3) , contamination of some su r face water may continue. This being the case, the resu l t would likely be an underestimate by the EPA of the l evel of potential exposure to hazardous substances from surface water.

Cancer Risk Assessment

The cancer risk assessment as presented in the EA omits several considerat ions t hat may have lead to a sig nifican t unde r estimate of risk on which the PS is based.

Pi nt, several recent human epidemi olog i c s tudies dealing wi th t he indicator chemi c als we r e i gnored . A study by Iaac son , e t aL (Am J Epidemi o l U85;12lt856- 869) obse r ved i ncreased risk of colon and r ectal cance r associated wi th 1, 2 dichloroethane in the watec supply. The levels were estimated at > or • 0.1 uq/L A study of a leukemia c lus ter i n Wobu r n, Massachusetts (Lagakos, et al. (J Am Statts Assoc U86r81:583-596) found an association with well water contaminated with trichloroethylene (267 ppb) and perchloroethylene (21 ppb). While these two studies are far from concluaive, and 110st would auqqest quite controversial, they indicate that greater risks of cancer than the !A estiaates froa chlorinated hydrocarbons may be present.

secondly, the !A relatively ignores chesaicala such aa chroaiu11, which are well de110natrated carcinogens. The rationalhation ia that only inhalation is considered to be a de•onstrated route of expoaure for chro11ium to act aa a carcinogen, however, it is !;clear that, just as volatile agents aay enter the household air through non-drinking uaea of water, ao may inorqanic particulates. cFinally, the assumption of the cancer risk being additive from the different chemical exposures very likely results in an underestimate of the overall cancer risk. The interaction of two or more agents to qreatly increase risks of cancer in excess of additivity is well established. Perhaps the beat known example is the interaction of cigarete smoking and aabestoa in the producti on of lunq c ance r. Gi ven the large number of proven and s uspec t carc i nogens present a t the Laure l Park site, the likelihood of an inte ractive combinati on existing there appea rs almost cer t ain.

Effectiveness of Remedial Action

The FS undermines its analysis of groundwater treatment technology in that the discussion double-counts the factors of economics and feasibility based on the National Contingency Plan and on the Safe Drinking Water Act (Maximum Contaminant Levels).

Because of the nature of the site , it is not clear that the use of wells and French drains, as proposed in Alternatives 2 and 3, will result in total containment of leachate on site . The Laurel Park landfill rests directly on a bedrock formation with little till. The presence of fissures in the bedrock is likely to allow direct ni9ration of leachate from the bottom of the site directly into aquifer, despite the presence of the proposed draina9e. This is likely to result in continued contamination of the 9roundwater and spring-fed surface water by leachate from the Laurel Park site.

PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

Impleraentation of alternative 3 as presented in the PS with the modifications discussed above offers adequate protection of public health and the e nvironment. Prom the perspective of PEG, this approach has several advantages over alternative 2, the only other effective choice. Alternative 3 is 110re deaireable i n that it would maintain treatment off-site. This configuration avoids three areas of potential risk to residents around the landfill . By diluting waste in the sewage system, aore acute exposure to workers conductin9 on-site treat•ent would be avoided. Secondly, off-site treatment would lessen the potential for ha1ardous air eaiaaions and volatili•ation enhanced by storage and treatment facilities. Thirdly, off-site treataent would avoid the odor which periodically emanates from the exilting aewa9e treatment plant as far as the landfill area.

This is not to su9geat that Alternative 3 is not without need of iaprovement. Generally, aore testing should be conducted both before and after the remedial action to deter•ine ita eftectiveneaa.

The geolo9y and hydrolo9y should be further characterized now to determine a baseline, including the location of conta•inants, especially heavy raetals. Indicator chealicala should be aelectedfro11 the hi9heat concentrations and the moat mobile substances. Monitoring should be carried on on a 1on9-term basis and adjusted accordin9 to ita results to determine plume pro9reaa, especially if givin9 rise to off-site contamination

Fundamental to source control is maintaining the integrity of the cap. The cap should incorporate a layer of course material under a layer of fine material to inhibit root penetration of the cap , thus increaain9 leachate production. Monitoring of cap integrity should be conducted more often than quarterly, that is, whenever any climactic variation could interfere with the cap or related equipment or functio ns . Pans, flames and vents for methane control must also be inspected and maintained to prevent explosion and catastrophic release as well as odor.

Leachate going into the sewage pipe at the site should be monitored daily so as to prevent operational problema at the treatment plant because variations in weather will affect the quality and quantity of flow from the landfill. Likewise, the effluent from the sewage treatment plant should be monitored daily so as t o determine and ensure the effectiveness of the treatment process.

Cl early , how well the treatment sys t em is maintained and what are the backups is c r uc i al to t he success of off -site treatment over the long-ter m. (The fact that off- site t reatme nt would not requ i re maintenance o f an addi t i onal tr eatment facility was suggested in the PS as an advantage of alternative 3 . ) Al ternative 3 should be expanded to i nclude pl ana for action s hou ld the sewer line and/or t he treatment p l ant fail to perform thei r functi ons as projected in al t ernative 3. (CERCLA Section 121 (d) (3) requ i res that any facilit y receivi ng ha za rdous subatancea fr o• a remedial act i on c o• ply wi th applicable Pede ra l law and s tate r equirements. ) Becau se it ia owned by several potentially re1pons ible part ies under CERCLA Sect i on 107 (a) and third party defendanta in the r ecently filed counterclai• (B.P.

,_, Goodrich, et al. v . Harold Murtha, e t al., Civil Action No. N-87­52 (PCD) (D. C. Conn.) (filocl April 15, UBB), tho NWPCF ahould be oven een by a cithen co,.ittee including res idents of the landfill area which shall deter• ine when backup H asur ll shall be i•ple• ented in the cas e of the failure of the off-s ite treat• ent propos ed in alternative 3.

CBRCLA Section 121 (b) d isfavors off- site treatment. Ye t , off­s ite t r eat•ent coapr iaea one o f t he key elements o f the prefe rred alte rnative 3. Therefore , EPA should take pa r t icula r care to 11odi f y t hat sel ec t i on to compe ns ate fo r the ris ks t o health and t he environ•ent resulting from off-site treatment as pr opoaed above.

EMERGENCY RELIEF FROM SECURITY PENCE

EPA or res ponsible parties should construct or pay for a security f enc e surrounding the site and posted to prevent entry and to noti f y t he public of the ha za rd as soon as possibl e . Persona can and do now ent er t he l andf ill and destabilize ita cover, t hus increasing i nf iltration and contaminat ed leachate , engage i n illegal dumping , inc ludi ng perhaps of hazardous waste, and endanger their own health. An appropriate authority should enforce a ban against trespass or damage to the fence with penalties .

ADDITIONAL RELIEF OF DRINKING WATER PROVISION AND HEALTH STUDY

Under an already existing agreement between Uniroyal and the State with EPA ' s approval , the homes of residents whose wells are contaminated or threatened by leachate from the landfill are to be hooked up to municipal water this summer. This date has already been put back several times. Because this relief forms an in:..egral t"art o~ any remedial alternative considered in the PS and mi nima lly acceptabl e to PEG, EPA should ensure that complete hookups are accomplished this summer without further delay.

I n addition to t he hookups, the cost of the wa ter s upply i t self, whic h these homeowners had a l ready paid when they secured their wells , should also be provided by t he r espons ible parties as pa rt of the remedial action. This compensation should be retroac tive, where appropriate, and run from the time of installation, including the initial washout , when the vater coapany begins charging customers . Not only does this approach comport vith the theory that equitable relief s hould restore the injured party to its previous position, thh relief is particularly crucial to the velfare of the elderly residents vho 11ake up approxi11ately 20

,-. percent of the landfill vicinity population and •u•t continue for ..._) the rest of their lives on a fixed inco•e. (See also letter

dated June 7, 1988 from Daisy Ostrander of PEG.)

Residents also request that the remedial package i nclude a lor"IC)­ter• health effects study, a health r egiltry , and a health surveillance progra11, as authorized by CERCLA Section 104{1) (7) , (8} and (9). This request is consistent with other related authority in Subsection 104(i) (1) (D) (eaergency medical care and testing) and (E) (health status survey and screening, adaiaaion to hospitals, facilities and services), (1} (3) (C) (toxicological profiles) and (i) (4) (expo1ure consultations) - -which relief we also request as the above relief. Congress expressed ita s ense that such activities are appropriate for inclulion in CERCLA remedies financed by responsible partie s in Subs ecti on (!)(5) (D) .

Indeed, Subsect ion (i ) (6) (A} and (D) mandates that a health assessment should be c ompl e t ed in advance of t he RI/PS •to the maximum extent p r acticable• and not l ater than December 10, 1988 . The proximity and expertise of the Yale School of Medicine well situates it t o conduct these functions in conjunction with the ATSDR . Using the resources of that institution as well as OSHA's recent l y developed occupational testing model, our toxicologists could develop a more detailed and site-specific proqram for the residents--given adequate time to do so.

J

I

-- r

CONCLUSIONS

The EA and the PS fail to portray the full extent of the aeriouaneaa of the threat to health and the environment at the Laurel Park landtill for the above described renons. The presence at this site of well-established carcinogens such as areenic, benzene, and vinyl chloride in conjunction with toxic agents such as lead and beryllium by themselves warrant prompt and comprehensive action. The simultaneous risk that may result from the numerous suspected and potential carcinogens only adds to the ur9ency and necesaity of prompt and effective action.

In short, a clear hazard to the health of residents and to the environ•ent in the vicinity of the Laurel Park landfill exists. Only by prompt and concerted remedial action .oditied by the above reco!ll1lendationa can the already existing rhk and da•age to the residents and to the environment be •itigated .

0

ccr Sen. Weicker Sen. Dodd Rep. Rowland PEG