Comment submitted by C. Hein

When the Spiegelberg Landfill was originally listed on the NPL, it was found that significant amounts of toxic substances had leeched into the groundwater of the site and its surrounding areas, many of which contained rural residences. Remedial action on the groundwater, specifically, began in 1990. This residential area relies on the aquifer for its water supply. It may be appropriate to remove the Spiegelberg Landfill from the NPL; however, I believe that the health effects on the surrounding population should still be monitored pursuant to § 42 USC 9604(i)(6)(F), (i)(7)(B) in CERCLA. The effects of the ingestion of lead have been subject to litigation as recently as a four years ago as seen in State v. Lead Industries Association, 951 A. 2d 418 (RI 2008) and Meyer ex rel Coplin v. Fluor Corp., 220 S.W. 3d 712 (MI 2007). These cases discussed the adverse effects of lead ingestion and the necessity of medical monitoring due to the latency period of adverse health effects associated with ingestion. The groundwater began being cleaned up in 1990 and until now the groundwater has not been deemed clean. Assuming that the groundwater was sufficiently clean five years ago, that could still mean that the surrounding population was ingesting unacceptable levels of lead. Therefore, I believe it is appropriate for the Administrator of the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry to allow for continued health assessments of the surrounding population pursuant to 42 USC § 9604 (i)(6)(F). This portion of CERCLA allows assessments of the risks to human health posed by individual sites based on exposure. Furthermore, the Administrator should allow for studies to develop epidemiological evidence to be developed from the entire exposed population pursuant to § 42 USC 9604(i)(7)(B). Under this section, if the epidemiology studies reveal an increased risk in adverse health effects, then medical monitoring costs and surveillance could be provided to the population.