HOOKER (HYDE PARK) SUPERFUND SITE 

TOWN OF NIAGARA, NEW YORK 

DELETION FROM THE 

NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST 

 

 RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY

September 2013
1 

RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY

Concerning the Deletion from 

the National Priorities List of the 

Hooker (Hyde Park) Superfund Site, Town of Niagara, 

Niagara County, New York 

INTRODUCTION

On August 20, 2012, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a direct final deletion 

notice in the Federal Register. This notice proposed the EPA’s intention to delete the Hooker 

(Hyde Park) Superfund Site (Site) from the National Priorities List (NPL). The publication of this 

notice also announced a public comment period on the proposed deletion which ended on 

September 19, 2012. If during the comment period no adverse comments were received, the Site 

would have been deleted without further notice in the Federal Register. However, during the 

comment period, the EPA received some adverse comments regarding the proposed deletion. As a 

result, on September 27, 2012, the EPA published a follow-up notice in the Federal Register

withdrawing the direct final deletion for the Site and announcing it would evaluate and respond to 

the significant comments and, if appropriate, proceed with the traditional two-step deletion 

process. 

This Responsiveness Summary provides a summary of comments received during the public 

comment period, as well as the EPA’s responses after considering the public comments received. 

All public comments received during the comment period were considered in the EPA’s final 

decision to delete the Site from the NPL. 

Attached to the Responsiveness Summary is the following Appendix: 

Appendix A — Correspondence Submitted During the Public Comment Period. The EPA received 

five letters during the public comment period, which are attached as Appendix A. 

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS AND RESPONSES

Comment 1: A commenter stated that regular water quality and biomonitoring and analysis 

undertaken by the Ontario Ministry of the Environment have identified high concentrations of 

dioxins and furans in the vicinity of Bloody Run Creek. Furthermore, the commenter stated that 

the dioxin and furan isomer patterns from the monitoring contain a unique signature that the 

commenter believes is representative of the Hyde Park Site. The commenter therefore also 

believes that the proposed deletion of the Site is premature because the Site, according to the 

commenter, is a continued source of dioxins and furans entering the Niagara River. 

EPA’s Response 1: As indicated in the 2012 Notice of Intent to Delete, the selected remedy for 

the Site in 1985 (1985 Remedy) is a containment remedy and not an aquifer restoration remedy 

intended to restore the aquifer to its most beneficial use (i.e., a source of drinking water). The goal 
2 

of a containment remedy is to prevent the migration of disposed waste and leachate associated with 

that waste material, along with affected groundwater from a site. Hydraulic containment 

activities included pumping and treating technologies to intercept non-aqueous and aqueous phase 

liquids from the source area and prevent migration to the downgradient aquifer and discharge to 

the Niagara River. In addition to hydraulic containment activities, a combination of response 

activities at the Site are designed to prevent potential exposures to Site-related contaminants, 

including 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD, a form of dioxin). These response 

activities included capping the landfill and perimeter with a low permeability clay cap and a 

synthetic membrane, and a drainage layer and topsoil seeded with native vegetation for barrier 

protection. 

The EPA routinely inspects the landfill cap for erosion. The current condition of the cap is 

excellent. The cap provides a barrier to exposure to contaminated materials located below the cap. 

In addition, institutional controls were placed on the Site property to ensure that it not be used in 

any manner that would interfere with or adversely affect the integrity or effectiveness of the 

remedial action implemented at the Site. Activities which would create soil exposures, including 

digging, excavation, extraction of materials, construction or other activity that would disturb the 

cap placed on the landfill, are prohibited. The Site also may not be used for residential purposes. 

As indicated in the 2012 Notice of Intent to Delete, the EPA utilized multiple lines of evidence to 

initially demonstrate that Site-related contamination was being hydraulically contained. These 

multiple lines of evidence include: potentiometric surface maps for the eight monitored flow 

zones; groundwater quality data; groundwater flow budget and particle tracking analysis using a 

numerical groundwater flow model; vertical hydraulic gradient data; historical groundwater 

quality trends from the Non-Aqueous Phase Liquid (NAPL, concentrated contaminated liquid, that 

forms a separate phase and is immiscible or does not dissolve in water) performance monitoring 

wells; groundwater relative age-dating, based on sulfate concentrations; and comparison of the 

chemistry of the seeps in the Niagara River gorge to the chemistry of the bedrock groundwater 

surrounding the Site. 

The responsible parties, with oversight from the EPA, continue to collect and analyze a subset of 

these parameters as part of the operation and maintenance plan. Following these lines of evidence, 

data collected support the conclusion that the performance objectives of the 1985 Remedy 

continue to be maintained throughout its years of operation since its completion. Based upon these 

results, the 1985 Remedy selected for the Site is deemed to be effective in protecting human health 

and the environment. Groundwater monitoring continues to demonstrate that hydraulic 

containment is being achieved at the Site. Groundwater measurements are taken quarterly. The 

results of the groundwater monitoring presented in the Site annual reports document that hydraulic 

containment is being achieved. Groundwater sampling is conducted quarterly as required by the 

Performance Monitoring Plan. The EPA and the New York State Department of Environmental 

Conservation (NYSDEC) review the quarterly and annual reports. 
3 

The EPA has thus determined that the remedial action undertaken at the Site, specifically the 

hydraulic containment achieved by the network of pumping wells, has prevented and continues to 

prevent further migration of contaminants from the Site. 

The Bloody Run is a small creek flowing northwest from the vicinity of the Site towards the 

Niagara Gorge, located approximately two thousand feet from the Site. The Bloody Run 

historically received infiltration from surface runoff associated with the Site during periods of 

heavy rain. Response activities implemented at the Site included the construction of swales to 

prevent surface runoff. As a result, the Bloody Run does not receive any surface water infiltration 

from the Site. The flow in the Bloody Run is the result of surface runoff from area roads and paved 

surfaces. Currently, the Bloody Run is mostly channelized in culverts and sewers as it flows 

toward the Niagara Gorge. The Bloody Run exits the culvert at the Niagara Gorge and flows 

steeply into the Niagara River over a pile of boulders. 

The commenter identifies an environmental monitoring program conducted by the Ontario 

Ministry of the Environment as part of the Niagara River bio-monitoring program. Sediments 

were collected from the mouth of the Bloody Run where it meets the Niagara River and were 

subsequently analyzed for dioxins and furans. Mussels were placed in cages at the location where 

the sediment was collected and left there for 21 days, after which they were removed and also 

analyzed for dioxins and furans. The data indentified in the Ontario Ministry of the Environment’s 

comments were a subset of data collected during the implementation of this program. 

The Niagara River Mussel Biomonitoring Program: 1983–2009, published in 2011 by the Ontario 

Ministry of the Environment (Lisa A. Richman, et al, 2001) in the Journal of Great Lakes 

Research, number 37, indicated that concentrations of dioxins and furans in sediment and mussels 

are lower than pre-remediation levels. The report suggested that the response activities taken to 

cover contaminated sediment on the river bank have reduced the concentrations of the dioxins and 

furans. A trend analysis of Site-related contaminants in both mussel tissue and sediments shows 

decreasing concentrations. However, the Ontario Ministry of the Environment raised concerns that 

the levels in sediment were higher than in other Great Lakes basins. TCDD was found in sediment 

at a maximum concentration of 45 parts per billion (ppb) in the samples obtained by the Ontario 

Ministry of the Environment. 

The response activities conducted in the Niagara Gorge and completed in 1998 included the 

scraping of all sediments adhered to the rock, the diversion of seeps into culverts, and the 

installation of fences to prevent access to the seeps and the Bloody Run creek by fishermen and 

other recreational visitors. Contaminated sediments were removed from the Bloody Run above 

and southeast of the Niagara Gorge, approximately 1200 feet from the Site, and restoration was 

performed in 1994. In addition, hydraulic containment activities have changed hydrogeology 

around the Site and significantly reduced the flux of groundwater out of the Niagara Gorge face. 

The EPA conducted an ecological risk analysis of the data presented in the comment consistent 

with the Agency’s guidance and policy. The long-term monitoring data show that concentrations 

of dioxins, furans and toxicity equivalence (TEQ) in sediment and mussel tissue have markedly 
4 

decreased since 1993 (Lisa A. Richman, et al, 2001). A TEQ is the product of the concentration of 

an individual dioxin-like compound in an environmental mixture and its corresponding toxic 

equivalence factors. TEQs enable the comparison of dioxin-like compounds of varying toxicity. 

Therefore, the ecological risk analysis focused on the most recent sediment and mussel tissue data 

from 2006 and 2009 because these time points most closely represent current conditions. The risk 

analysis included food chain modeling for the mink and kingfisher—two ecological receptors 

considered to be among the most sensitive to organochlorine contaminants such as TCDD. The 

results of the food chain model calculations using representative assumptions for 

biologically-based model parameters (e.g., food ingestion rates, sediment ingestion rates, 

percentage of mussels or fish in the diet, area use factor, body weight) indicated that the recent 

concentrations of total TEQ detected in sediments and mussels should not pose an unacceptable 

risk to ecological receptors. Therefore, the observed substantial reductions in total TEQs in 

sediment and mussel tissue from 1993-2009 combined with the food chain model calculations for 

sensitive ecological receptors support the conclusion that ecological risks have been reduced to 

acceptable levels. 

The area where the impacted sediment was collected is one of limited access to humans. As a 

result, frequency of exposure assumptions used to evaluate risks associated with exposure to these 

sediments should be significantly lower than that of a residential exposure scenario that assumes 

exposures of 350 days/year for a period of six years as a child (assuming a child is one to six years 

of age) and 24 years as an adult. This conclusion is based on several factors. These factors include 

that there is not a significant quantity of sediment present at the shoreline. Also, the volume and 

depth of water in the Niagara River fluctuates daily because of the operations of the Robert Moses 

Power Plant. The sediment at the mouth of the Bloody Run is submerged by river water early in the 

morning and remains covered until after dark because the release of water from the power 

authority raises the level of the river by several feet. The sediment is inaccessible when 

underwater, and therefore the sediment is not available for human exposure during those hours. 

Access to the mouth of the Bloody Run as it enters the Niagara River is achieved by walking from 

stairs near the New York Power Authority parking lot using an overgrown, steep dirt path with no 

guardrails. The New York Power Authority provides a convenient fishing platform for anglers 

next to the parking lot so that they are not fishing at the dangerous shoreline. In addition, the 

population which the EPA considers most at risk from potential exposure to these sediments are 

adolescent and adult anglers. Anglers, however, would only be at this location for a limited time 

each year, considering school attendance for children and winter conditions that prevent all-year 

access. The availability of the fishing platform, the fluctuation of the river bank, the limited 

accessibility of the mouth of the Bloody Run lead to the conclusion that exposure to Site-related 

contaminants is not expected or is significantly limited at this location. 

Based on remedial activities completed to date and the evaluation of risk based on the sediment 

and mussel tissue concentrations presented in the comment, the EPA does not consider the deletion 

of the Site from the NPL to be premature. The remedial actions specified in the 1985 Remedy have 

been implemented, and operation and maintenance activities are ongoing. The EPA has the 

authority to respond appropriately if a problem or situation arises at a site after it is deleted. The 

EPA will continue to provide oversight, review monitoring reports, and routinely communicate 
5 

with the responsible party performing work at the Site. Operation and maintenance of the remedy 

will continue at the Site and monitoring will continue to be performed to demonstrate hydraulic 

capture. 

Comment 2: One commenter requested that the Site not be deleted from the NPL because the 

detection level for certain indicator chemicals, such as polychlorinated bipheynls (PCBs), 

pesticides and Mirex (an insecticide), which are generally in the 1 part per billion range, are not 

sufficiently robust to detect hazardous substances in water at levels where they may still cause 

injury to wildlife species common to the Great Lakes. 

EPA’s Response 2: The EPA periodically evaluates the analytical methods employed at a site to 

ensure that the analytical results meet the data collection requirements. The Performance 

Monitoring Plan, approved by the EPA and the NYSDEC in 1996, specifies the analytical methods 

to be used in the laboratory. The organochlorine pesticide parameters, including Mirex, are 

analyzed using the EPA method SW-846 8081 and PCBs are analyzed using the EPA Method 680. 

As demonstrated using multiple lines of evidence, the groundwater associated with the Site is 

being hydraulically contained. Surface water samples collected historically and as part of the 

Niagara River biomonitoring program use methods that provide adequate resolution to 

appropriately evaluate hazardous substances in water. 

Comment 3: The same commenter stated that it was the overall scientific position of the 

Canadian-U.S. citizen group intervention as ‘friends of the court’ at the time of the 1981 settlement 

hearings in federal district court that complete cleanup, removal and destruction of the Hyde Park 

wastes were infinitely preferable and economically feasible in comparison to a strategy of on-Site 

containment because, given the nature and quantity of the hazardous wastes present and the 

hydrogeological conditions at the Site, containment would be necessary in perpetuity, and its 

effectiveness over the long-term would be highly uncertain, as it was expected only to capture 90 

per cent of the contaminated groundwater derived from the waste buried at the Site. 

EPA’s Response 3: Remedial alternatives to hydraulic containment of the Site were evaluated 

during the Settlement Agreement negotiations among the EPA, New York State and Occidental 

Chemical Corporation (OCC), and they were deemed not appropriate at that time. The EPA 

prepared an extensive evaluation of health risks, feasibility and costs of total excavation of the 

historic landfill and other highly contaminated areas and documented this evaluation in a report 

entitled “Excavation Report,” dated 1985. 

The results of the Excavation Report indicate that (a) there would be extremely high health risks 

from total excavation (cancer risk greater than 1 in 100); (b) there is no reliable, fully tested, 

existing dust and vapor suppression technology that could lower the risk from excavation of this 

magnitude to an acceptable level; and (c) the costs of total excavation and either reburial or 

incineration were extremely high, between $125 million (for the low estimate for off-site 
6 

1andfilling) and over $3 billion (for the high estimate for on-Site incineration) not including all 

costs. 

The Excavation Study also briefly examined a dust suppression technology (use of a movable 

inflatable dome) for adaptation to hazardous waste site remedial construction. Use of such a 

technology under these circumstances would require considerable development and testing before 

it could be approved for use given the extremely hazardous atmosphere that would be created 

inside the dome during total excavation of the Site. 

In addition, NAPL present in fractures in the bedrock is a source of contamination to the 

groundwater. This NAPL would not be removed if the material present at the Site were excavated. 

The EPA and New York State agreed at the time of the 1985 Remedy that hydraulic containment 

and capture of contaminated groundwater impacted by Site contaminants is the best remedial 

alternative for the Site. The EPA and New York State still believe that hydraulic containment and 

capture of contaminated groundwater are necessary to prevent the migration of contaminants from 

the Site. 

Comment 4: The same commenter expressed that there is no justification for deleting Hyde Park 

from the NPL given its hazardous contents and that the remediation strategy chosen for the Site 

(hydraulic containment) needs to be in place in perpetuity. 

EPA’s Response 4: In accordance with 40 CFR 300.425(e), sites may be deleted from the NPL 

where all appropriate response has been implemented, which by definition does not include 

operation and maintenance, or statutorily-required five-year reviews. An explanation of the 

criteria for deleting sites from the NPL was presented in Section II of the August 20, 2012, Notice 

of Deletion, and a description of the Site and how it meets the criteria for deletion were presented 

in Section IV of that notice. The EPA, with the concurrence of the NYSDEC, on behalf of the State 

of New York, has concluded that these criteria for deletion have been met. As stated previously, 

the remedy selected for the Site is a containment remedy. The goal of this remedy is to prevent the 

migration of leachate and contaminated groundwater from the Site through capping, groundwater 

collection, NAPL collection, and treatment of extracted groundwater and NAPL. This goal has 

been achieved through a series of programs. The source control program has reduced the 

contamination migrating downward from the landfill by removing mobile NAPL remaining in the 

landfill; the landfill cap has decreased leachate generation and as a result NAPL mobility has 

decreased; the overburden barrier collection system contains the lateral migration of the NAPL 

plume and contains the Aqueous Phase Liquid (APL, or contaminated groundwater) plume, to the 

extent practicable; the bedrock APL plume containment system at the Gorge Face ensures that 

bedrock groundwater is flowing inward toward the center of the remediated area and eliminates 

seepage to the Gorge Face; and the NAPL plume containment system contributes to the 

elimination of seepage of chemicals at the Gorge Face. 
7 

Following various lines of evidence, the EPA has concluded that the performance objectives of the 

remedy have been attained and the remedy selected for the Site is protective of human health and 

the environment. Operation and maintenance activities associated with these systems will 

continue. These activities will be evaluated every five years as part of the five-year review process. 

Comment 5: The same commenter was concerned that a scientific study indicated that there is a 

potential for earthquakes in western New York State. 

EPA’s Response 5: The remedial systems at the Site, including the leachate treatment facility, 

have been constructed in accordance with Niagara County ordinances and regulations, as well as 

industry standards. Piping systems that transport hazardous materials at the Site include secondary 

containment to capture a potential release that could occur in case of a failure of the piping system, 

such as from an earthquake. The EPA, the NYSDEC and the New York State Department of 

Health conducted oversight during the design and construction of these remedial systems and 

determined that all applicable federal and state quality assurance and quality control procedures 

and protocols were incorporated into the construction. Furthermore, the Site is routinely inspected, 

and the remedial systems are electronically monitored 24 hours a day. 

Comment 6: The same commenter expressed that the EPA has approved an impermanent solution 

for the Site, as it has at many sites. Delisting the Hyde Park Site from the NPL compounds the 

problem of the impermanent containment strategy that was approved for the Site in the first place. 

EPA’s Response 6: The EPA believes that the 1985 containment remedy is appropriate for this 

Site. As more fully explained in Response 3, above, the EPA prepared an extensive evaluation of 

health risks, engineering feasibility, and costs of total excavation of the historic landfill and other 

highly contaminated areas and documented this evaluation in a report entitled “Excavation 

Report,” dated 1985, and determined that containment of the landfill was the appropriate remedy. 

With respect to the groundwater portion of the remedy, while the EPA strives to return 

groundwater to its beneficial uses wherever practicable, within a time frame that is reasonable 

given the particular circumstances of the Site, when restoration of groundwater to beneficial uses 

is not practicable, the EPA endeavors to prevent further migration of the plume and prevent 

exposure to the contaminated groundwater. The goal of the Hyde Park Landfill containment 

remedy is to prevent the migration of leachate and contaminated groundwater from the Site 

through capping, groundwater collection, NAPL collection and treatment of extracted 

groundwater and NAPL. A containment remedy differs from an aquifer restoration remedy, the 

latter of which has the goal of restoring the aquifer to its most beneficial use. The most beneficial 

use of this aquifer is use as drinking water. In order to achieve this use, concentrations of the 

contaminants of concern would need to be reduced to their respective Maximum Contaminant 

Levels (MCLs) established under the Safe Drinking Water Act and/or New York State 

groundwater and drinking-water standards. Figure 1 presents a plan view of the bedrock NAPL 

zone and the area of hydraulic containment resulting from these actions. Achieving these 
8 

standards within the containment area is not practicable and is not an objective of the 1985 

Remedy. The EPA examined various remedial alternatives before selecting a source control and 

hydraulic control remedy. No feasible alternative was capable of restoring the aquifer to 

drinking-water standards. As part of the remedy selection process, the EPA determined that it 

was technically impracticable to restore the aquifer. The remedy for the Site will not restore the 

aquifer to drinking-water standards; rather, it is designed to control exposure to contaminants 

associated with the Site. 

The EPA continues to believe that technology does not exist at present which will restore the 

aquifer to drinking-water standards. Excavation of the source of contamination is not practical 

because the NAPL is present in fractured bedrock. A significant portion of the NAPL has sorbed to 

the limestone, effectively creating a reservoir of contamination for the groundwater. The 1985 

Remedy is an appropriate remedy for the Site as extensive evaluation has shown that it continues 

to be protective of human health and the environment. 

Comment 7: The same commenter noted that any defects in the settlement agreement identified 

by ‘friends of the court’ in the 1981 settlement hearing that have not been corrected during 

implementation of the subsequent remedial action can only be compounded by delisting the Site 

from the NPL. 

EPA’s Response 7: The ‘friends of the court’ identified what they considered to be deficiencies in 

the Hyde Park Landfill Settlement Agreement. However, the Settlement Agreement was approved 

by the federal court in 1982. Since then, the agreement has been implemented in accordance with 

its terms, and the remedy will continue to be operated, maintained and monitored into the future. 

Comment 8: The same commenter noted that the relevant regulation states in part that the EPA 

may delete a site from the NPL if “all appropriate Fund-financed response under CERCLA has 

been implemented and no further response action by responsible parties is appropriate” [40 C.F.R. 

300.425(e)(1)(ii)]. In fact, “further response action” will be required post-NPL deletion of Hyde 

Park.

EPA’s Response 8: The EPA routinely deletes sites from the NPL when all appropriate response 

under CERCLA has been implemented, and operation and maintenance activities are being 

conducted. The definition of “response action” in this context, in both law and regulation, is 

complete when the remedial component is constructed and operating properly. It does not 

include the long-term operation and maintenance of such a system into the future as part of the 

“response.” The response action of the 1985 remedy included the design and construction of a 

properly functioning containment system for the materials which remain at the Site. That system is 

operated and maintained (through, among other things, periodic monitoring) to ensure it remains 

protective of human health and the environment. The activities the commenter cites to as “further 

response actions” are in fact all related to the operation and maintenance of that system – 
9 

“collection, treatment, maintenance, monitoring, sampling, pumping, inspection, and related 

activities.” Therefore, it is not anticipated that further response action will be required. As 

documented in the Final Close-Out Report, dated August 2012, this Site meets all the site 

completion requirements pursuant to the EPA guidance document entitled “Close Out Procedures 

for National Priorities List Sites (OSWER Directive 9320.2-22, May 2011).” Specifically, the 

implemented remedy achieved the degree of cleanup specified in the 1985 Remedy decision 

document for all pathways of exposure. The remedy, remedial action objectives and associated 

cleanup goals are consistent with Agency policy and guidance. No further Superfund response, 

as defined in law and regulation, is needed to protect human health and the environment. The EPA 

and New York State will continue to provide oversight of operation and maintenance activities 

performed at the Site, and five-year reviews will be conducted every five years as well. 

Comment 9: A commenter noted that the EPA created its own obstacle by needing to demonstrate 

that any future observed release from the Site is “significant” and/or based on “new information” 

before the Site can be restored to the NPL and that this will only further hamper the EPA remedial 

action efforts. 

EPA’s Response 9: The NCP provides a framework for restoring a site to the NPL if there is a 

“significant” release of hazardous substances. As discussed in the comment above, the EPA 

routinely deletes sites from the NPL where all necessary remedial action has been implemented 

and operation and maintenance activities are ongoing. The commenter stated that the EPA creates 

an obstacle restoring a site to the NPL, “by delisting [the Site] without solving the underlying 

problem [because] the wastes that made [the Site] an NPL site three decades ago are still there in 

2012.” The EPA disagrees and would not characterize the process of studying the Site conditions 

and then selecting and overseeing the design and implementation of a containment remedy as not 

“solving the underlying problem.” To the contrary, containment is often used as an effective 

component of remedies, especially when a large volume of material which can be effectively 

isolated is present at a site. In addition, regarding the statement in Section II of the August 20, 

2012, Notice of Deletion, FR Doc. No. 2012-20266 (that the EPA may initiate further action to 

ensure continued protectiveness at a deleted site if new information becomes available that 

indicates it is appropriate), it was not intended to create an additional requirement that the 

information be “new” in addition to the requirement that the release be significant. To be clear, the 

information need not have been unknown prior to it being discerned. Current information leads to 

the conclusion that the containment system is working properly and effectively. The statement 

merely means that if it were determined in the future that the conclusion about the containment 

system is not correct, that would be new information. The EPA only need determine that the 

legally required NCP requirement of a significant release would be needed to restore the Site to the 

NPL after delisting. 
10 

Comment 10: A commenter opined that citizens may assume that deleting the Site from the NPL 

means the Site is “safe” for use in various ways. The commenter wanted the EPA to consider 

public perception with respect to the deletion of the Site. 

EPA’s Response 10: The Notice of Intent to Delete stated that engineering and institutional 

controls are in place to ensure that the remedy is protective of human health and the environment 

since contamination remains at the Site above levels that allow for unrestricted use and unlimited 

exposure. Groundwater modeling to date indicates that the NAPL and groundwater containment 

continue to contain contamination within the capture zone of these systems and prevent migration 

to the Niagara Gorge. With respect to the institutional controls, an environmental easement was 

placed on the landfill property in October 2010 that imposes certain use restrictions that will run 

with the land for the purpose of protecting human health and the environment in the future. In 

addition to this specific institutional control, the Niagara County Department of Health imposes 

restrictions on the drilling and usage of groundwater wells. These restrictions ensure that 

drinking-water wells are not installed in areas of contaminated groundwater, effectively 

preventing the direct exposure to Site-related contaminants.. The EPA believes that these 

institutional controls are effective mechanisms to ensure use restrictions at the Site regardless of 

public perception. 
AFW-1L

11 AFW-1U

6

AFW-1M

7,9

B2U

6

B2L

11

B2M

7,9

PW-1U

PW-7U

PW-1L

PW-8U

PW-8M

PW-9U

PMW-1L

11

PMW-1U

5,6

PW-2UR

PW-2L

PW-10U

J5M

6,7,9 J5L

11

J5U

2,4,5

PW-2M

PW-6MR

PW-5UR

PW-4U

PW-4M

PW-3M

PW-3L

PW-6UR

D1L

11 D1U

4,5,6

D2L

11

D2M

7,9

F4U

2,4,5

F4L

11

C3

6 7,9

ABP-7

6,7,9

G1

2

G1U

1,4

G1L

G1M 11

6,7,9

F2L

11

AFW-2U

4,5,6

AFW-2M

7,9

AGW-1L

11

AGW-1M

7,9

AGW-1U

5,6

I1

1,2,4,5,6,7,9,11

H5

1,2,4,5,6,7,9,11

H2L

11

H2U

1,2

H2M

5,6,9

J6

2,4,5,6,7,9,11

APW-1

APW-2

G6

1,2,4,5,6,7,11

F4M

6,7,9

F6

4,5,6,7,9,11

E6

4,5,6,7,9,11

F2M

6,7,9

F2U

2,4,5

D2U

4,5,6

D1M

7,9

PMW-1M

7,9

AFW-2L

11

ABP-1

7,9

LEGEND

BEDROCK FLOW ZONE PIEZOMETER LOCATION

FLOW ZONES INSTRUMENTED

F2U

2,4,5

APW-2 PURGE WELL

0 300 600ft

figure 1

HYDE PARK LANDFILL NAPL AND APL ZONE BOUNDARIES

HYDE PARK LANDFILL SITE

GLENN SPRINGS HOLDINGS, INC.

01069-D23101(PRES007)GN-WA001 NOV 04/2011

PIEZOMETER WITH NO APL CONCENTRATIONS

ABOVE HYDE PARK SCREENING LEVELS

PIEZOMETER WITH NO APL CONCENTRATIONS

ABOVE HYDE PARK SCREENING LEVELS

NOTES:

FIGURE INCLUDES ALL FLOW ZONES.

MOST RECENT DATA FOR EACH PIEZOMETER

USED FOR FIGURE.

APL - AQUEOUS PHASE LIQUID

1.

2.

3.

EXCEPT IN FLOW ZONES 7, 9 AND/OR 11.

GROUNDWATER FLOW IN THESE ZONES IS

TOWARD THE SITE.

SUPERIMPOSED APPROXIMATE EXTENT OF

NAPL IN BEDROCK FROM ALL FLOW ZONES

BASED ON 2003 CHARACTERIZATION

SUPERIMPOSED APPROXIMATE EXTENT OF APL

CONCENTRATIONS ABOVE HYDE PARK

ALL FLOW ZONES

SCREENING LEVELS IN BEDROCK FROM

4.NAPL - NON AQUEOUS PHASE LIQUID
HOOKER (HYDE PARK) SUPERFUND SITE 

TOWN OF NIAGARA, NEW YORK 

DELETION FROM THE 

NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST 

 

 RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY 

APPENDIX A



Canadian Environmental Law Association 

T 416 960-2284 •F 416 960-9392 • 130 Spadina Avenue, Suite 301 Toronto, Ontario M5V 2L4 • cela.ca

VIA TELEFAX 212-637-4283

AND ELECTRONIC MAIL

<sosa.gloria@epa.gov> 

September 18, 2012 

Gloria M. Sosa 

Remedial Project Manager 

Emergency and Remedial Response Division 

United States Environmental Protection Agency 

Region 2 

290 Broadway, 20th Floor 

New York, New York 10007-1866 

Dear Ms Sosa: 

RE: NATIONAL OIL AND HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES POLLUTION 

CONTINGENCY PLAN; NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST: DELETION OF THE 

HOOKER (HYDE PARK) SUPERFUND SITE – DOCKET ID NO. EPA-HQSFUND-1983-0002 

We are counsel to Great Lakes United (“GLU”), a bi-national Canadian-U.S. coalition of 

approximately 100 non-government organizations based within the Great Lakes Basin. GLU has 

offices in Buffalo, New York, Ottawa, Ontario, and Montreal, Quebec. A list of the member 

organizations of GLU appears at Appendix A to these submissions. We have been instructed by 

GLU to make the following submissions opposing the Environmental Protection Agency 

(“EPA”) deletion of the Hooker Hyde Park Superfund Site (“Hyde Park”) from the National 

Priorities List (“NPL”). 

Statutory Context 

The NPL is an appendix to the National Contingency Plan (“NCP”). The latter, originally 

prepared under federal water pollution control legislation, was revised pursuant to section 105 

[§9605] of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act

(“CERCLA” or “Superfund”), 42 U.S.C. §9601 et seq. (1980), as amended. Section 105 

authorized revision of the NCP in order to establish the NPL, a list of top-priority facilities 

presenting the greatest danger to health, welfare, or the environment arising from the release or 

threatened release of hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants. The NCP, in conjunction 

with other CERCLA authorities (e.g. section 104 [§9604], establish the ground rules for action by 

EPA in responding to releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances, and procedures for 

making cleanup decisions. 
Letter from CELA- 2 

EPA can perform relatively simple cleanup steps, defined as “removal” actions under section 

101(23) [§9601(23)] of CERCLA and, for example, 40 C.F.R. §300.415 of the NCP, at any site 

posing an immediate threat to human health or the environment. EPA is not precluded from 

acting if a site is not on the NPL. For example, being on the NPL is not a precondition to EPA’s 

ability to perform removal actions, such as removing leaking drums [See, for example, 40 C.F.R. 

§300.415(e)(7)]. 

EPA can also investigate the need for more extensive cleanup actions, and implement these more 

extensive cleanups at NPL sites. These more extensive cleanups are defined as “remedial 

actions” under section 101(24) [§9601(24)] of CERCLA and 40 C.F.R. §§300.420, 425, 430, 435 

of the NCP. The Act defines “remedial action” in part as meaning “those actions consistent with 

permanent remedy taken instead of or in addition to removal actions...” NPL sites may be the 

subject of remedial actions financed by the Hazardous Substance Superfund (“Fund”), also 

established under CERCLA. In general, NPL-listing is a prerequisite with respect to EPA’s 

authority to implement long-term cleanup remedies, such as groundwater treatment, qualifying 

as remedial actions under section 101(24) of CERCLA. Sites deleted from the NPL still remain 

eligible for Fund-financed remedial actions, should future conditions warrant such actions. 

However, for a deleted site to be eligible for restoration to the NPL, there must be a “significant” 

release from the site, though the site may be restored to the NPL without application of the 

Hazard Ranking System (“HRS”) otherwise authorized under the Act [40 C.F.R. 300.425(e)(3)]. 

Site Background and History Leading to the Listing of Hyde Park on the NPL 

The August 20, 2012 Federal Register notice [77 Fed. Reg. 50,038 (2012) (“2012 FRN”)] issued 

by EPA, sets out the site background and history leading to the listing of Hyde Park on the NPL 

as follows: 

 Hyde Park is a 15-acre site located in the northwest corner of the Town of Niagara, New 

York; 

 The Niagara River, an international boundary, is located 2,000 feet to the northwest, 

down the Niagara Gorge which descends approximately 350 feet below the surface of the 

landfill; 

 The Niagara River flows into Lake Ontario approximately 10 miles downstream of the 

site. Lake Ontario is a drinking-water source for millions of people [in the United States 

and Canada]; 

 The Bloody Run is a small drainage area flowing north from the landfill and considered 

part of the site. The stream flows under a neighbouring industry via a storm sewer, which 

emerges at the Niagara Gorge; 

 The geology underlying Hyde Park is glacial overburden overlying fractured Lockport 

Dolomite bedrock; 
Letter from CELA- 3 

 Groundwater in the vicinity of the landfill flows in both the overburden and the bedrock. 

Generally, the overburden is saturated at depths below ten feet; 

 The groundwater movement from the landfill is both downward and horizontal. Some of 

this groundwater exits the Niagara Gorge Face in the form of seeps that flow into the 

Niagara River; 

 Contaminants migrate from the landfill in two forms: (1) aqueous phase liquid (“APL” or 

contaminated groundwater) and (2) dense non-aqueous phase liquid (“NAPL”); 

 Hooker Chemical (“Hooker”), now Occidental Chemical Corporation (“OCC”), disposed 

of approximately 80,000 tons of waste at Hyde Park from 1953 to 1975. These wastes 

were primarily chlorobenzenes, chlorotoluenes, halogenated aliphatics, and 2,4,5-

trichlorophenol (“TCP”) still bottoms; 

 An estimated 3,300 tons of TCP were disposed of at Hyde Park. TCP wastes are known 

to contain significant amounts of dioxin. EPA has estimated that approximately 0.7-1.6 

tons of dioxin were associated with the TCP wastes at Hyde Park; 

 Hyde Park was proposed for listing on the NPL in December 1982 and was listed on the 

NPL in September 1983. 

Actions Leading to Selected Remedial Action for Hyde Park 

The 2012 FRN also summarizes the actions that led directly to the selected remedial action for 

Hyde Park as an NPL site: 

 EPA sued Hooker in 1979 in federal district court seeking to require the company to 

remediate the site; 

 A federal district court judge approved a settlement agreement between the parties in 

April 1982; 

 An aquifer survey completed in 1983 by the company defined the extent of 

contamination in the overburden and bedrock, and assessed remedial alternatives and 

was used by the parties to agree on remedial actions to be performed at Hyde Park. The 

remedial actions were documented and approved by the court in 1986; 

 During this period EPA also performed a risk assessment using worst case exposure 

scenarios that indicated that the greatest risk from Hyde Park was the consumption of 

fish contaminated with dioxin; 

 Follow-up work also resulted in EPA issuing in 1985 an enforcement decision document 

(“EDD”) documenting the remedial action selected for the Hyde Park cleanup; 
Letter from CELA- 4 

 EPA acknowledged that the APL and NAPL plumes would not be remediated to 

drinking water standards because of the persistent nature of NAPL. Therefore, the goal 

of the remedies selected in the EDD was to hydraulically contain contaminated 

groundwater (APL plume) in the vicinity of the site, while extracting as much NAPL as 

practicable; 

 In May 2012, EPA clarified that the remedy selected for the site in the EDD is a 

containment remedy and not an aquifer restoration remedy intended to restore the aquifer 

to its best beneficial use (i.e. a source of drinking water) and that the goal of a 

containment remedy is to prevent migration of disposed waste and leachate along with 

affected groundwater from a landfill or site. 

EPA Rationale for Deleting Hyde Park from the NPL 

The 2012 FRN also sets out EPA’s rationale for deleting Hyde Park from the NPL. In summary, 

EPA states that: 

“The NCP specifies that EPA may delete a site from the NPL if ‘all appropriate 

Fund-financed response under CERCLA has been implemented, and no further 

response action by responsible parties is appropriate’. 40 CFR 300.425(e)(1)(ii). 

EPA, with the concurrence of the State of New York, through NYSDEC, believes 

this criterion for deletion has been met because [the] landfill cap has decreased 

leachate generation and as a result, NAPL mobility has decreased. In addition, 

overburden and bedrock hydraulic containment is effective in containing both 

NAPL and APL plumes within the TI zone documented in the 2011 ESD and 

prevent contaminants from seeping into the Niagara River. Finally, ICs prevent 

disturbance of the landfill cap and consumption of contaminated water. 

Consequently, EPA is deleting this Site from the NPL. Documents supporting this 

action are available in the Site files” [77 Fed. Reg. 50,043 (2012)]. 

Among the particular points made by EPA in the 2012 FRN in support of the above conclusions 

include: 

 The source control program, whose purpose is to reduce the amount of chemicals 

migrating down from the landfill by removing any mobile NAPL remaining in the 

landfill, has not yielded large amounts of NAPL due to either the remedial measures 

instituted, such as the landfill cap, or other factors set out in the 2012 FRN. To date, more 

than 300,000 gallons of NAPL have been removed and destroyed; 

 Both APL (above MCLs) and NAPL were not observed in any of the overburden 

monitoring well locations after 1996, indicating that the overburden barrier collection 

system serves as an effective barrier to off-site NAPL migration; 

 The APL plume containment system, consisting of three purge wells installed at the 

Niagara Gorge Face in 1994, contains and collects a significant portion of the APL 
Letter from CELA- 5 

plume; the portion of the plume not collected by these wells is monitored by monitoring 

well and piezometer clusters; 

 The APL is treated on-site at the leachate storage and treatment facility constructed by 

OCC in 1990; 

 The entire landfill was capped in 1994, is routinely inspected for erosion, and is currently 

in excellent condition; 

 Approximately 30,000 cubic yards of contaminated sediment was excavated from the 

Bloody Run drainage area, and other remedial work has been performed; 

 The Niagara River Gorge Face has been remediated, and human access to the seeps is 

prevented by the installation of fences and the diversion of seeps to culverts; 

 Institutional controls that run with the land, such as restrictive covenants and 

environmental easements, have been placed on the Hyde Park property so that the various 

remedial actions can be implemented, facilitated, and monitored; 

 OCC undertook other remediation measures relating to on-site lagoons, area sewers, and 

hydrogeological studies of contaminant movement between rock formations; 

 A bioaccumulation study of dioxin levels in Lake Ontario fish was undertaken, which 

indicated that dioxin was bioaccumulating in the tissues of various Lake Ontario fish 

species at a range of rates that overall was regarded as protective; and 

 Detection levels (generally in the 1 part per billion range) for certain contaminants such 

as PCBs, pesticides, Mirex, were not exceeded and thus did not necessitate calculating 

possible impacts to the Niagara River Gorge. The detection level for dioxin (9.52 

picograms per liter) also was not exceeded. 

Overall, the 2012 FRN indicated that because the performance goal for the remedial action is 

containment of contaminated groundwater, EPA was satisfied after considering multiple lines of 

evidence that Hyde Park contamination is being hydraulically contained [77 Fed. Reg. 50,043 

(2012)]. 

GLU Reasons for Opposing the Deletion of Hyde Park from the NPL 

Notwithstanding the above measures recorded by EPA in its 2012 FRN, GLU opposes deletion 

of Hyde Park from the NPL for the scientific, legal and policy reasons set out below. 

 Scientific Reasons for Opposing Deletion of Hyde Park from the NPL 

GLU’s scientific reasons for opposing the deletion of Hyde Park from the NPL originate with 

Canadian-U.S. citizen group intervention as friends of the court (amici curiae) in the federal 

district court litigation in Buffalo, New York. As noted above, approval by federal district court 
Letter from CELA- 6 

of the settlement agreement between the parties in 1982 set in motion the requirements of the 

environmental remediation that has subsequently occurred at Hyde Park. 

It was the overall scientific position of the amici (the Ecumenical Task Force of Buffalo, New 

York, Operation Clean-Niagara, Ontario, and Pollution Probe, Toronto, Ontario) at the time of 

the 1981 settlement hearings in federal district court that complete cleanup, removal, and 

destruction of the Hyde Park wastes was infinitely preferable and economically feasible in 

comparison to a strategy of on-site containment because, given the nature and quantity of the 

hazardous wastes present and the hydrogeological conditions at the site, containment would be 

necessary in perpetuity, and its effectiveness over the long-term would be highly uncertain, as it 

was expected only to capture 90 per cent of the contaminated groundwater derived from the 

waste buried at the site. Put another way, the containment strategy could result in continued 

migration to the Niagara River of a possible 10 per cent of the 80,000 tons of hazardous waste 

buried at Hyde Park, and that this would represent a significant impact to the Niagara River and 

Lake Ontario in the long term and result in the bioaccumulation of contaminants up the food 

chain. Furthermore, it was experts for the amici (Grant Anderson, hydrogeologist, and Dr. Doug 

Hallett, environmental chemist) testifying at the settlement hearing that predicted that 

contaminants could be, and were in fact, reaching the Niagara River from the Gorge Face, and 

that the Rochester Shale, beneath the Hyde Park landfill, did not form an impermeable barrier to 

groundwater moving downward. In effect, therefore, the Hyde Park landfill was like a box 

without a bottom. The particulars of that scientific position, as well as a full summary of the 

examinations in chief and cross-examinations of all witnesses, and oral and written arguments of 

counsel for the parties at the settlement hearing are set out in Appendix B to these submissions. 

Despite the 1982 judicial approval of the hydraulic containment strategy of the parties (Hooker, 

the United States, and New York State), even federal district court noted during the course of its 

reasons for judgment that: 

“The basic concern which underlies this lawsuit is not the presence of the 

chemicals in the Landfill itself but the fact that these chemicals will migrate away 

from the Landfill toward the Niagara River and Lake Ontario. Given the deadly 

toxicity of these chemicals in even minute dosages, the spectre of these wastes 

seeping into the Niagara River is indeed frightening” [United States v. Hooker 

Chemicals and Plastics Corporation, 540 F. Supp. 1067, 1073 (U.S. Dist. Ct., 

W.D.N.Y. 1982)]. 

Set against this background, GLU submits that all the EPA 2012 FRN does is confirm that the 

remediation strategy chosen (hydraulic containment) needs to be in place in perpetuity. 

Accordingly, there is no justification for deleting Hyde Park from the NPL given its hazardous 

contents. As the EPA 2012 FRN itself notes, Lake Ontario is a drinking-water source for 

millions. Indeed, Lake Ontario is the drinking water source for approximately 10-20 per cent of 

the population of Canada. 

Moreover, the 2012 FRN leaves certain key scientific questions unanswered. For example, the 

detection level for certain indicator chemicals noted above, such as PCBs, pesticides, and Mirex, 

is stated to be generally in the 1 part per billion range as set out in the following Table 1: 
Letter from CELA- 7 

Table 1: Detection Levels for Certain Chemicals Identified in 2012 FRN 

Chemical Detection Level 

(in micrograms per litre - parts per billion) 

PCBs 0.20-0.098 

Pesticides 0.050 

Mirex 0.050 

Source: 77 Fed. Reg. 50,042-50,043 (2012) 

However, a 1993 study showed that wildlife species common to the Great Lakes (eggs of bald 

eagles, herring gulls, Caspian terns, double-crested cormorants, white leghorn chickens, and 

ranch mink) could be adversely impacted by water concentrations of PCBs in the 0.1 to 31 parts 

per quadrillion range, or five orders of magnitude lower than the detection levels used by the 

parties in connection with Hyde Park. The study authors concluded that: 

“These toxic substances [PCBs and similar polychlorinated hydrocarbon – PCH – 

compounds, such as dioxins] will be active in the Great Lakes for many years. Because 

they cannot be removed effectively from the Great Lakes once released, extraordinary 

efforts should be made to minimize any further point source releases of these compounds 

and any other PCHs with similar modes of action to the Great Lakes” [emphasis in 

original]. The study appears at Appendix C to these submissions. 

In the circumstances, it would not be prudent to delete Hyde Park from the NPL in part on the 

basis of detection levels that are not sufficiently robust to detect hazardous substances in water at 

levels where they may still cause injury to wildlife species common to the Great Lakes. 

Finally, there is some scientific evidence that the western portion of Lake Ontario may be subject 

to earthquake activity. The authors of a 1998 study observed that seismic hazard may be 

underestimated in areas, such as that encompassing western Lake Ontario, that are devoid of 

documented large earthquakes. Factors examined in the study suggest that “it would not be 

unreasonable to expect a major earthquake in the western Lake Ontario area because” it is where 

“at least three regionally extensive linear zones converge”. The study reports that seismic activity 

“in the area of the study is most abundant adjacent to and beneath the western part of Lake 

Ontario (Figs. 16 and 17)”. Figures 16 and 17 include the Niagara River. The study authors 

conclude that arising from the foregoing “this particular region may have a greater potential for 

tectonic activity and large magnitude earthquakes than heretofore believed” (see Appendix D to 

these submissions). It is not clear whether EPA has considered this evidence and its implications 

for the integrity of the hydraulic containment system in place at Hyde Park. In the opinion of 

GLU, this information presents a further reason not to delete Hyde Park from the NPL. 

 Legal and Policy Reasons for Opposing Deletion of Hyde Park from the NPL 

There are at least four legal and policy reasons why GLU opposes deletion of Hyde Park from 

the NPL. 
Letter from CELA- 8 

First, in establishing the concepts of removal and remedial actions in CERCLA, the Congress of 

the United States sought to ensure that the sites posing the gravest hazard to human health and 

the environment would be allocated the greatest resources to ensure cleanup. In general, 

therefore, it is our understanding that whether a cleanup activity is characterized as removal or 

remedial is of considerable significance because it affects not only the availability of Fund 

monies (i.e. for non-NPL sites), but also the thoroughness and the cost of the studies and reports 

that must be prepared, and the extent of the procedural requirements that must be satisfied, 

before cleanup can occur or continue. Hyde Park cleared the hurdle of becoming an NPL site 30 

years ago. By delisting Hyde Park without solving the underlying problem that the wastes that 

made Hyde Park an NPL site three decades ago are still there in 2012, EPA erects a potential 

obstacle in its own path by needing to demonstrate that any future observed release from the site 

is “significant” before the site can be restored to the NPL. Indeed, the obstacle to restoring Hyde 

Park to the NPL posed by delisting may be even more onerous than that because EPA states in 

the 2012 FRN that the agency “may initiate further action to ensure continued protectiveness at a 

deleted site if new information becomes available that indicates it is appropriate” [77 Fed. Reg. 

50,040 (2012)] (emphasis added). If the test for restoring Hyde Park to the NPL is the presence 

of “significant” and “new” information then this will only further hamper EPA remedial action 

efforts given what is already known about the site and its potential impacts. 

Second, just as the Canadian-U.S. citizen groups that intervened in federal district court in 1981 

were concerned that the court was approving a containment strategy that would have to be 

implemented in perpetuity, rather than a permanent solution that would end once and for all 

within a finite time period the problems posed by Hyde Park, it is our understanding that this 

very concern has been a much more widely recognized phenomenon in the United States under 

CERCLA. For example, in 1989 the Office of Technology Assessment (“OTA”) concluded that 

the failure of Congress to define more precisely what it meant by “permanent” in CERCLA’s 

preference for permanent remedies, allowed EPA too much flexibility to pursue impermanent 

remedies, which were often selected in order to reach settlements when potentially responsible 

persons (“PRPs”) or the government were unwilling to spend more money on remedial action. 

The OTA estimated that PRPs saved 50 percent ($1 billion) in ultimate cleanup costs in fiscal 

year 1988 due to EPA’s willingness to agree to impermanent remedies. The OTA concern at the 

time was that the ultimate cost to clean up these sites would be far higher and take far longer as a 

result [See generally, Office of Technology Assessment, Coming Clean: Superfund Problems 

Can be Solved, (Washington, D.C.: OTA, 1989]. In these circumstances, delisting Hyde Park 

from the NPL compounds the problem of the impermanent containment strategy that was 

approved for the site in the first place. 

Third, any defects in the settlement agreement identified by amici in the 1981 settlement hearing 

(see Appendix B to these submissions) that were not corrected by subsequent remedial action can 

only be compounded by delisting Hyde Park from the NPL. 

Fourth, as a matter of law GLU does not agree with EPA that conditions at Hyde Park meet the 

NCP criteria for deletion from the NPL. The NCP states in part that EPA may delete a site from 

the NPL if “all appropriate Fund-financed response under CERCLA has been implemented and 

no further response action by responsible parties is appropriate” [40 C.F.R. 300.425(e)(1)(ii)]. In 

fact, “further response action” will be required post-NPL deletion of Hyde Park. The 2012 FRN 
Letter from CELA- 9 

itself notes the collection, treatment, maintenance, monitoring, sampling, pumping, inspection, 

and related activities that “OCC must perform” [77 Fed. Reg. 50,043 (2012)]. These further 

response actions are necessary components of the remedial action approved as a containment 

strategy that OCC, as the responsible party, must implement. These further response actions are 

also necessary because, as EPA admits in the 2012 FRN, “hazardous substances remain at the 

Site above levels that would allow for unlimited use with unrestricted exposure” [77 Fed. Reg. 

50,043 (2012)]. That hazardous substances remain at the site is further confirmed by the 2012 

FRN reference to section 121(c) [§9621(c)] of CERCLA that states that a five-year review of 

remedial action is necessary if a remedial action is selected “that results in any hazardous 

substances, pollutants, or contaminants remaining at the site...”. Accordingly, GLU submits that 

the NCP criteria for deleting Hyde Park from the NPL have not been met because “further 

response actions” are necessary. 

 

GLU Concluding Comments 

Many of the key reasons that necessitated Hyde Park being listed on the NPL in the 1980s 

continue to exist today. The chemicals are still there, they are still hazardous and, because of the 

remedial action strategy chosen, they require robust environmental management essentially 

forever. For the foregoing reasons, GLU opposes the EPA deletion of Hyde Park from the NPL. 

Yours truly, 

CANADIAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW ASSOCIATION

Joseph F. Castrilli 

Counsel 

cc. Mr. John Jackson, Interim Executive Director, Great Lakes United 

Encl. 

Appendix A – List of member organizations of Great Lakes United 

Appendix B – Canadian Environmental Law Association, Report to Environment Canada – The 

Hyde Park Landfill Case: Canadian Citizen Action in the U.S. Courts, (Toronto: CELA, 1982) 

Appendix C – James P. Ludwig, et al, A Comparison of Water Quality Criteria for the Great 

Lakes Based on Human and Wildlife Health, (1993) J. Great Lakes Res. 19(4): 789-807 

Appendix D – J.L. Wallach et al, Linear Zones, Seismicity, and the Possibility of a Major 

Earthquake in the Intraplate Western Lake Ontario area of Eastern North America, (1998) 

Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences 35(7): 762-786 
EPA Proposes to Delete Hooker-Hyde Park Landfill in Niagara Falls, 

N.Y. from Superfund List After Cleanup

Donna J. Fasanella to: Gloria Sosa 09/18/2012 05:52 PM

Cc:

"Donna J. Fasanella", Camille L Fasanella, "Evan J. Fasanella", 

"Shawn M. Anderson", Amy Braunstein, Karina Wilkinson, 

Marcia Brice, "Karen R. Brooks", "barbour@rce.rutgers.edu", 

From: "Donna J. Fasanella" <pro_aktv@yahoo.com>

To: Gloria Sosa/R2/USEPA/US@EPA

Cc: "Donna J. Fasanella" <pro_aktv@yahoo.com>, Camille L Fasanella 

<principessacf@yahoo.com>, "Evan J. Fasanella" <evanellakb@yahoo.com>, "Shawn 

M. Anderson" <windcharm@yahoo.com>, Amy Braunstein 

History: This message has been replied to.

Dear Ms. Sosa,

I read the notice of proposal to delete the Hooker-Hyde Landfill from the Superfund list. It states 

that EPA has done the cleanup work necessary to fully remediate the site. The wording of 

paragraph 3 is a bit fuzzy. "Has monitored" and "actions taken" imply past work done at the site. 

Does the EPA intend to continue to monitor the site to make certain the pumps, that were 

installed to control the flow of contaminated groundwater, are still operating? Because it sounds 

like once you delete the site from the Superfund list, EPA will no longer periodically inspect and 

review the property. Please say I'm wrong.

Regards,

Donna J. Fasanella

Sent from my iPad
Home Help Resources Feedback and Questions

Comment Now!

Home About Us Resources Help Connect With

Document Details

Anonymous public comment

Document ID: EPA-HQ-SFUND-1983-0002-0422 Document Type: Public 

Submission

This is comment on Rule: National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; National Priorities List: 

Deletion of Hooker (Hyde Park) Superfund Site

Docket ID: EPA-HQ-SFUND-1983-0002

RIN: Not Assigned

Topics: No Topics associated with this document

View Document:

Less

Document Subtype: Private Citizen Comment

Status: Posted

Received Date: September 09 2012, at 12:00 AM Eastern Daylight Time 

Date Posted: September 11 2012, at 12:00 AM Eastern Daylight Time 

Comment Start Date: August 20 2012, at 12:00 AM Eastern Daylight Time 

Comment Due Date: September 19 2012, at 11:59 PM Eastern Daylight Time 

Postmark Date: September 09 2012, at 12:00 AM Eastern Daylight Time 

Tracking Number: 8110e3db

Page Count: 1

Number of Duplicate Submissions: 1

"Hazardous substances remain at the Site above levels that would allow for unlimited use with unrestricted exposure." Given this information,

should it be taken off the Superfund Site list? Yes, the cleaning is progressing, but might the removal of this site from the list lead to the 

hazardous substances being ingested, even in amounts that may (or may not) be safe? There could be citizens who would assume that the 

deletion means the site is safe for use in various ways in which it is not yet safe. Furthermore, the historic and touristic nature of the area 

makes it more important to protect and cleanse the site before giving any perception to the public that the water is normal, safe, or other such 

things. Please consider this when making your decisions and actions.

Search

Advanced Search

Browse By Category

eRulemaking Program

Newsroom

Agencies

Site Data

Regulatory Agenda

How to use 

Regulations.gov

FAQs

Anonymous public comment Page 1 of 2

http://www.regulations.gov/ 9/18/2012
Feedback and 

Questions

Partner Sites Participate Today!

Browse By Topics

Learn

Awards & Recognition

Enhancements & Fixes

Agency Reports Required 

by Statute

Executive Order 12866

Executive Order 13563

Developers Beta

Glossary

Privacy Notice

User Notice

Accessibility Statement

Exchange Federal Register Reginfo Thomas USA.gov E-Gov Opengov

Site Data

Regulatory 

Agenda

Agency Report 

Required by 

Statute

Anonymous public comment Page 2 of 2

http://www.regulations.gov/ 9/18/2012