• Home
• About ATSDR
• Press Room
• A-Z Index
• Glossary
• Employment
• Contact Us
• CDC

ATSDR en Español

Search:

Skip directly to: content | left navigation | search

---

Find a Publication

1. ATSDR > Public Health Assessments & Consultations

PUBLIC HEALTH ASSESSMENT

NORTH BRONSON INDUSTRIAL AREA
BRONSON, BRANCH COUNTY, MICHIGAN

Table 9. Concentrations of contaminants of concern in surface water from the western lagoons on the North Bronson Industrial Area site.

Reference: 1

Shaded chemicals exceed comparison values

Contaminants of concern that are not listed were not detected

ND -- Not Detected
(III) -- For chromium(III)
(VI) -- For chromium(VI)

NA -- None Available
carcinogen -- Carcinogen (proven, probable, or possible) but no CREG available

Comparison Value Bases:

E -- ATSDR Environmental Media Evaluation Guides (EMEGs)
Ei -- ATSDR Environmental Media Evaluation Guides (EMEGs), intermediate-duration exposure
R -- ATSDR Reference Dose Media Evaluation Guides (RMEGs), calculated from EPA Reference Dose, assuming child ingestion
C -- ATSDR Cancer Risk Evaluation Guides (CREGs), for 1 x 10^-6 estimated excess cancer risk (a significant additional risk of developing cancer is taken to be one additional case of cancer in a population of 1 million people experiencing the exposure)
A -- U.S. EPA Drinking Water Lifetime Health Advisory
PL -- U.S. EPA Proposed Action Level for Lead in Drinking Water

Table 10. Concentrations of contaminants of concern in sludge samples collected from the lagoons on the North Bronson Industrial Area site.

Reference: 1

Shaded chemicals exceed comparison values

Contaminants of concern that are not listed were not detected

ND -- Not Detected
J -- Estimated Value
NA -- None Available

(III) -- For chromium(III)
(VI) -- For chromium(VI)

carcinogen -- Carcinogen (proven, probable, or possible) but no CREG available

Comparison Value Bases:

E -- ATSDR Environmental Media Evaluation Guides (EMEGs)
Ei -- ATSDR Environmental Media Evaluation Guides (EMEGs), intermediate-duration exposure
R -- ATSDR Reference Dose Media Evaluation Guides (RMEGs), calculated from EPA Reference Dose, assuming child ingestion
C -- ATSDR Cancer Risk Evaluation Guides (CREGs), for 1 x 10-6 estimated excess cancer risk (a significant additional risk of developing cancer is taken to be one additional case of cancer in a population of 1 million people experiencing the exposure)

Table 11. Concentrations of contaminants of concern found in water from residential wells near the North Bronson Industrial Area site study area.

Shaded chemicals exceed comparison values

Contaminants of concern that are not listed were not detected

ND -- Not Detected

carcinogen -- Carcinogen (proven, probable, or possible) but no CREG available

Comparison Value Bases:

E -- ATSDR Environmental Media Evaluation Guides (EMEGs)
R -- ATSDR Reference Dose Media Evaluation Guides (RMEGs), calculated from EPA Reference Dose, assuming child ingestion
C -- ATSDR Cancer Risk Evaluation Guides (CREGs), for 1 x 10^-6 estimated excess cancer risk (a significant additional risk of developing cancer is taken to be one additional case of cancer in a population of 1 million people experiencing the exposure)
PL -- EPA Proposed Action Level for Lead in Drinking Water

Table 12. Concentrations of contaminants of concern in water from monitoring wells near the North Bronson Industrial Area site.

Reference: 1

Shaded chemicals exceed comparison values

Contaminants of concern that are not listed were not detected

ND -- Not Detected

carcinogen -- Carcinogen (proven, probable, or possible) but no CREG available

Comparison Value Bases:

E -- ATSDR Environmental Media Evaluation Guides (EMEGs)
R -- ATSDR Reference Dose Media Evaluation Guides (RMEGs), calculated from EPA Reference Dose, assuming child ingestion
C -- ATSDR Cancer Risk Evaluation Guides (CREGs), for 1 x 10^-6 estimated excess cancer risk (a significant additional risk of developing cancer is taken to be one additional case of cancer in a population of 1 million people experiencing the exposure)
A -- U.S. EPA Drinking Water Lifetime Health Advisory

Table 13. Concentrations of contaminants of concern in surface soil samples collected near the North Bronson Industrial Area site in 1991.

Reference: 1

Shaded chemicals exceed comparison values
Contaminants of concern that are not listed were not detected

J -- Estimated Value

NA -- None Available

(III) -- For chromium(III)
(VI) -- For chromium(VI)

carcinogen -- Carcinogen (proven, probable, or possible) but no CREG available

Comparison Value Bases:

E -- ATSDR Environmental Media Evaluation Guides (EMEGs)
Ei -- ATSDR Environmental Media Evaluation Guides (EMEGs), intermediate-duration exposure
R -- ATSDR Reference Dose Media Evaluation Guides (RMEGs), calculated from EPA Reference Dose, assuming child ingestion
C -- ATSDR Cancer Risk Evaluation Guides (CREGs), for 1 x 10-6 estimated excess cancer risk (a significant additional risk of developing cancer is taken to be one additional case of cancer in a population of 1 million people experiencing the exposure)

Table 14. Concentrations of contaminants of concern (metals only) in subsurface soil samples collected from monitoring well borings near the North Bronson Industrial Area site in 1991.

Reference: 1

Shaded chemicals exceed comparison values

Contaminants of concern that are not listed were not detected

J -- Estimated Value

NA -- None Available

(III) -- For chromium(III)
(VI) -- For chromium(VI)

carcinogen -- Carcinogen (proven, probable, or possible) but no CREG available

Comparison Value Bases:

E -- ATSDR Environmental Media Evaluation Guides (EMEGs)
Ei -- ATSDR Environmental Media Evaluation Guides (EMEGs), intermediate-duration exposure
R -- ATSDR Reference Dose Media Evaluation Guides (RMEGs), calculated from U.S. EPA Reference Dose, assuming child ingestion
C -- ATSDR Cancer Risk Evaluation Guides (CREGs), for 1 x 10-6 estimated excess cancer risk (a significant additional risk of developing cancer is taken to be one additional case of cancer in a population of 1 million people experiencing the exposure)

Table 15. Concentrations of contaminants of concern in sediment from County Drain # 30 at and near the North Bronson Industrial Area site.

Reference: 1
Shaded chemicals exceed comparison values
Contaminants of concern that are not listed were not detected
ND -- Not Detected
J -- Estimated Value
X -- Total benzo(b)fluoranthene and benzo(k)fluoranthene
NA -- None Available
(III) -- For chromium(III)
(VI) -- For chromium(VI)
carcinogen -- Carcinogen (proven, probable, or possible) but no CREG available

Comparison Value Bases:

E -- ATSDR Environmental Media Evaluation Guides (EMEGs)
Ei -- ATSDR Environmental Media Evaluation Guides (EMEGs), intermediate-duration exposure
R -- ATSDR Reference Dose Media Evaluation Guides (RMEGs), calculated from EPA Reference Dose, assuming child ingestion
C -- ATSDR Cancer Risk Evaluation Guides (CREGs), for 1 x 10-6 estimated excess cancer risk (a significant additional risk of developing cancer is taken to be one additional case of cancer in a population of 1 million people experiencing the exposure)

Table 16. Concentrations of contaminants of concern in surface water from County Drain #30 near the North Bronson Industrial Area site and from outfalls to the creek from the site.

Reference: 1

Shaded chemicals exceed comparison values

Contaminants of concern that are not listed were not detected

ND -- Not Detected
X -- Total benzo(b)fluoranthene and benzo(k)fluoranthene
(III) -- For chromium(III)
(VI) -- For chromium(VI)

NA -- None Available
carcinogen -- Carcinogen (proven, probable, or possible) but no CREG available

Comparison Value Bases:

E -- ATSDR Environmental Media Evaluation Guides (EMEGs)
Ei -- ATSDR Environmental Media Evaluation Guides (EMEGs), intermediate-duration exposure
R -- ATSDR Reference Dose Media Evaluation Guides (RMEGs), calculated from EPA Reference Dose, assuming child ingestion
C -- ATSDR Cancer Risk Evaluation Guides (CREGs), for 1 x 10^-6 estimated excess cancer risk (a significant additional risk of developing cancer is taken to be one additional case of cancer in a population of 1 million people experiencing the exposure)
A -- EPA Drinking Water Lifetime Health Advisory
PL -- EPA Proposed Action Level for Lead in Drinking Water

RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY

The Michigan Department of Community Health (MDCH) released a draft of this document for public comment on November 6, 1996. The comment period lasted until December 6, 1996. The MDCH received comments from the city manager of the city of Bronson. His comments and MDCH responses to them follow. Page and paragraph references are to the draft that was released and may differ from those in this draft.

1. First of all, a good share of the warning in the draft was in relation to the cyanide destruction facility located in a residential block. The fallen structure was removed and the area fenced in May of this year (1996).

   Response: Thank you for reminding us of this. The events referred to occurred while ATSDR was reviewing and approving the draft assessment for this preliminary release. The state of the site study area has been brought up to date in the final draft.

2. Construction of the lagoons did begin in 1939. While there may have been five separate lagoons by the year 1949, initially only two were constructed.

   Response: Thank you for the information. The text has been revised to clarify the situation.

3. You also make reference to five lagoons at the Bronson Plating site. I don't recall ever seeing any data to substantiate any more than four lagoons.

   Response: A contractor for MDNR said there were five lagoons (Reference 2). We have reviewed the available information to improve the history of the site.

4. My records also show Bronson Plating acquiring the property on May 12, 1969, not 1970.

   Response: Thank you for the information. The text has been revised.

5. In July of 1995, Brad Stempel of the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) Emergency Response Division did indeed remove 50-60 55-gallon barrels from the site. The barrels were, however, all empty. Mr. Stempel told me personally that the barrels were innocuous, but they looked bad stacked in a former plating area and that he would remove them more for a cosmetic reason than that of any hazard they may represent.

   Response: Thank you for the information. The text has been revised.

6. On page four of the document under "Site Visit" Michigan Department of Health (MDPH) officials claim they were unable to obtain access to the west lagoons. Those lagoons are on city property. We have never refused access to the site to any official. The area is unfenced along the County Drain and could have been accessed even if no one was present at the waste water treatment facility.

   Response: At that time, the MDPH personnel made only a cursory attempt to reach the lagoons, and turned away at the closed gate to the wastewater treatment facility. No other methods of access were tried. We regret the unfortunate implication of our original phrasing, which has been revised. On a later occasion, documented in new text, MDPH personnel did obtain access to the lagoons, while MDNR personnel were there.

7. The 1990 Census for the City of Bronson is 2342, not 2332.

   Response: Thank you for the information, and the correct value is in the text.

8. The subsurface soil section on page 10 references that duplicate samples taken for the RI in 1991 showed much lower concentrations of some metals and substantially different concentrations of other metals. What are we to assume here? The area is cleaning itself up? The first set of samples was erroneous? The second set of samples was erroneous?

   Response: This issue is addressed in the "Quality Assurance and Quality Control" section of the draft assessment (page 13 of the public comment draft, page 12 in the current document):
   
   

   "[The order of magnitude difference between the concentrations in duplicate samples] suggests that there may have been some interference with the analysis, and the results for all soil samples analyzed at the same time may be questionable."
   
   

   The duplicate samples were collected at the same time, so it is not a question of the site situation changing. MDCH can not draw any further conclusions as to which set of results is accurate. MDNR's contractor presented these results in the RI report without further comment.

9. I believe, though I am not certain, the well use survey is complete. The document states that it was scheduled for completion in mid-1996.

   Response: The well-use survey was completed while ATSDR was reviewing and approving the draft assessment before the public comment release. The results of the complete survey have been included in this revision.

10. Again, overall I felt the document to be easy to read and useful.

    Response: Thank you for the compliment.

1. On October 1, 1995, the environmental evaluation, regulatory, and enforcement functions of the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) were transferred to the newly formed Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ).

2. Comparison values: Acetone -- ATSDR reference dose media evaluation guide (RMEG) 1,000 ppb; methyl ethyl ketone -- RMEG 6,000 ppb.

3. On April 1, 1996, the Michigan Department of Public Health (MDPH) Division of Health Risk Assessment (DHRA) was absorbed into the newly formed Michigan Department of Community Health (MDCH). The site history and background section of this document uses the departmental identifiers in effect at the time of the events.

4. Pica behavior is an abnormal consumption of nonfood materials, such as soil, most often seen in children between 2 and 5 years of age.

5. Comparison values: Acetone -- ATSDR reference dose media evaluation guide (RMEG) 1,000 ppb; methyl ethyl ketone -- RMEG 6,000 ppb.

6. On April 1, 1996, the Water Supply Division of the Michigan Department of Public Health (MDPH) was transferred to the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ), Division of Drinking Water and Radiological Protection. The organizational identifiers used in this document are those in effect when the actions described occurred.

7. Comparison values (in ppb): trichloroethylene -- 3 (CREG); cis-1,2-dichloroethylene -- 70 (LTHA); trans-1,2-dichloroethylene -- 100 (LTHA); vinyl chloride -- 0.2 (EMEG), no CREG; 1,1-dichloroethylene -- 90 (EMEG), 0.06 (CREG).

8. Comparison value: 1,1,1-trichloroethane -- 200 ppb (LTHA).

9. The estimated carbon disulfide exposure dose is given as 3.6 x 10^-2 mg/kg/day, and the reference dose as 1.0 x 10^-1 mg/kg/day. However, the hazard quotient, the exposure dose divided by the reference dose, is given as 3.6, when it should be 0.36. The sum of the hazard quotients, the hazard index, is given as 3.8, when it should be 0.5. Since the risk of non-cancer adverse health effects is considered significant if the hazard index exceeds 1.0, this error raises a nonsignificant risk to a significant one.

10. Pica behavior is an abnormal urge to consume nonfood substances, such as soil, that most commonly occurs between ages 2 and 5.

Table of Contents

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, 1825 Century Blvd, Atlanta, GA 30345
Contact CDC: 800-232-4636 / TTY: 888-232-6348 

Department of Health and Human Services