STANDARDS: Groundwater-X Drinking Water- Sediment-X Surface Water-X Air- LEGAL ACTION: TYPE..: Consent Order-DEE State- X STATUS : Negotiation in Progress- - FederalOrder Signed- X REMEDIAL ACTION: Proposed- Under design-X In Progress- Cwupleted- NATLTRE OF ACTION: Engineered capping systems, leachate coll+ction GEOTECHNICAL IINFOFNATION: SOIL TYPE: Sand, peat, silt. and clay GROUNDWATER DEPTH: Unlined part of L.F. 'below GW table ASSESSMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS: Several areas of environmental degradation have been identikied. Disposal of hazardous wastes has been confirmed. Groundwatler contamination is possible. Subsurface discharges to the Hudson Rivek may endanger the fishery. ASSESSHENT OF HEALTH.PROBLEMS: The landfill is located next to a large County Park on the W s o n River that is mostly used during the srmmer. Several potedtial exposure pathways exist on-site and are being addressed by remedial actions currently in place or planned for the near future. The potential exposures associated with contaminant migration rom the landfill asssociated with surface water n m o f f m ~ dleachat are being addressed by the expansion of a leachate collection systemlalready in operation on-site and the planned proper closure of the la dfill. Swimming in the Hudson River is not allowed at this park d e to high coliform counts. A portion of the park used for overnightcamping has been temporarily closed by the Westchester County Health D partment due to concerns with the documented migration of contamina ed soil-gas from the Landfill. A gas extraction system has been instailed to recapture this soil-gas plume. Potable water on Croton ~ o f n tis provided from public water supplies from inland sources. I $ t EXHIBIT D RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY CROTON POINT LANDFILL INACTIVE HAZARDOUS WASTE SITE (380001) INTRODUCTION: The issues and questions addressed in the following Responsiveness Summary were raised during a public meetin by the New York State Department of Environmental Conserv tion (DEC) on December 14, 1992 at the Croton Village Municipal Building in Croton-on-Hudson, New York and in various letiLers received during the comment period which began November 25, 1992 and ended January 15, 1993. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the results of the Remedial Investigation/ Feasibility Study (RI/FS) of the Croton Point Landfill Sitfe (#360001) and receive comments on DEC's Proposed Remedial Action Plan (PRAP) for the site. Representatives of the DEC, thq New York State Department of Health (DOH) and Westchester Courity were present at the meeting. A second meeting followed the PRAP meeting at which +e County updated the public on the status of the cap construction. While the second meeting did not discuss the PRAP, some of the more significant issues raised at the second meeting are addressed in this summary. The following organizations and individuals submitted written comments regarding the proposed remedy during the comment period: - - Richard Herbek, Village Manager, Croton-on-Hudson Robert Weissman, President, HMB Acquisition Corpbration Hilary Kitasei, President and Ginger Griffin, Cotchair Natural Resources, League of Women Voters Gudrun LeLash, Executive Director, Federated Conservationists of Westchester County, Inc. Nina McCall, President, Saw Mill River Audobon Society, Inc. Beth Gelber, Environmental Associate, Scenic Hud$on Henry Webb and Barbara Lariar, Croton-on-Hudson, NY Donald Kent, Environmental Associate, CLEARWATER The following individuals submitted written comments which were received on February 8, 1993 (after the close of the ctomment period) : - - Robert Elliott, Mayor, Village of Croton-on-Hudsqn Jan H. Wines, Chair, Conservation Advisory Council, Village of Croton-on-Hudson Even though these comments were received late they have been addressed in this Responsiveness Summary. Copies of all the written comments will be included in the repositories along with the transcript of the public meeting. OUESTIONS AND RESPONSES: This summary is organized by issue rather than a listing of all questions presented at the meeting and in writing. Issue 1: Requests that the comment period be extended two weeks t o allow individuals and organizations to comment due to the holiday season and the volume of iqformation to review. A request that the extended comment period be further extended to February 1, 1993. Res~onse: Since the request to extend the comment period was timely and justified, the comment period was extended 16 calendar days to January 15, 1993 for a total comment period of 50 days. The request for an additional extension was not granted, however, comments received shortly after the January 15th deadline were considered. Issue 2: Under the contractor's proposed material ttansport method, a private road running through the Half Moon Bay development would be used. There was $n objection to the capping contractor's use of that private road by an alleged owner of a portion of that road. ReSDOnse: The Half Moon Bay Homeowners Association ( W I i A ) responded back to the alleged owner that he was mistaken about which road was to be used ahd therefore was mistaken about his ownership of