• 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

WASTE INC. LANDFILL
MICHIGAN CITY, LA PORTE COUNTY, INDIANA

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

Figure 1. Site Location Map

Figure 2. Soil Sample Locations

Figure 3. Round One Monitoring Well Locations

Figure 4. Round Two Monitoring Well Locations

Figure 5. Rain Water and Storm Runoff/Leachate Sample Locations

Figure 6. Stream Sampling Cross Sections

APPENDIX B

On-Site Subsurface Soil Sample Results, August/October 1989

On-Site Groundwater Sample Results, Rounds I & II, May 1990/January 1991.

On-Site Groundwater Sample Results for Dissolved Inorganic Chemicals (Rounds I & II), May 1990/January 1991

On-Site Groundwater Sample Results for Total Inorganic Chemicals (Rounds I & II), May 1990/January 1991

Off-Site Storm Water Runoff and Leachate Sample Results, May 1990.

Off-Site Surface Water Sample Results, June 1987

Off-Site Stream Sediment Organic Chemicals Sample Results, June 1987

Off-Site Stream Sediment Inorganic Chemical Sample Results, June 1987

Off-Site Groundwater Sample Results, January 1991 (Rounds I & II)

Off-Site Groundwater Sample Results for Dissolved Inorganic Chemicals (Rounds I & II)
May 1990/January 1991.

Off-Site Groundwater Sample Results for Total Inorganic Chemicals (Rounds I & II) May 1990/January 1991

APPENDIX C

COMMENTS & RESPONSES

1.	COMMENT	If you know that this site is not the cause of cancer increase, please identify what the cause for our increased cancer rate.
	RESPONSE	The data that we reviewed did not indicate that individuals exposed at the estimated exposure doses would experience any significant increase in cancer. However, please recall that we identified data gaps (page 37). Although we are concerned about the health of the community, it is important to note that the focus and purpose of this document is to determine the adverse health effects caused by this site on the community.
2.	COMMENT	We urge you to find resources to continue the monitoring of fish tissues.
	RESPONSE	We agree that there is the continued need for fish tissue sampling in all Indiana rivers and streams; however, this request is beyond the scope and purpose of this document.
3.	COMMENT	The residence within 100 yards of the site should be included in the background section on page 2.
	RESPONSE	Wherever appropriate, this residence has been added to the document.
4.	COMMENT	We request a copy of the Court Order (Injunction) in 1993 which closed the site.
	RESPONSE	We do not have a copy of the Court Order. As this order was probably initiated by IDEM, I would suggest contacting the IDEM to obtain a copy.
5.	COMMENT	Why were no new samples required by ATSDR to confirm the allegations of illegal dumping occurring in 1988?
	RESPONSE	The recommendations made by ATSDR included collecting further sampling information which would pass acceptable quality control/quality assurance procedures, and obtaining additional information on site-related chemicals and any chemicals released off-site. Please see page 4 paragraph 1.
6.	COMMENT	Why were no samples taken of the drums seen on-site?
	RESPONSE	The drums that were seen throughout the site were all empty. The drums seen in the old office building contained decontamination water from drilling/sampling. In the event that we would like to know the contents of a drum or barrel, we would request either IDEM or EPA to sample for us. We do not perform any environmental sampling.
7.	COMMENT	Samples of the oil-type sheen observed on Trail Creek should be taken, and the storm sewer must be replaced.
	RESPONSE	The sampling of this media would not change the conclusions and recommendations of this Public Health Assessment. There is a fish advisory on Trail Creek, and we recommend that necessary actions be taken to prevent local population exposure to site-related contaminants (see page 38).
8.	COMMENT	The results of the door-to-door survey by the Minority Health Coalition of LaPorte County should be included. Also, the well at International Friendship Gardens should be tested.
	RESPONSE	We will request this information from the organization. However, it will not be a part of this document as the public comment period for this document is over. Please see page 7 regarding the well at International Friendship Gardens.
9.	COMMENT	The odd childhood cancers reported during the last public meeting should be investigated.
	RESPONSE	A health study is planned for this community to investigate adverse health effects, including odd childhood cancers.
10.	COMMENT	What about the Indiana Cancer Registry?
	RESPONSE	Data from the Indiana Cancer Registry was reviewed. The results of this review are contained on page 31.
11.	COMMENT	Where did you get the off-site comparisons?
	RESPONSE	The location of the off-site sample data is noted in the document. (Please see page 15, OFF-SITE CONTAMINATION.)
12.	COMMENT	Please identify the companies described on page 9, especially the one that showed emissions of either chromium in groundwater or nickel compounds in the air.
	RESPONSE	Please contact your local EPA office and request the latest publication of their Toxic Release Inventory. The specific companies are listed in this publication.
13.	COMMENT	Please identify the scientific basis for identifying "chemicals of concern".
	RESPONSE	This is discussed on page 8 of the document.
14.	COMMENT	Please identify the suspected source of dibenzofuran.
	RESPONSE	That is beyond the scope of this document. We have identified that the chemical was found in the on-site well; its source is unknown at this time.
16.	COMMENT	Why were only two rounds of sampling taken?
	RESPONSE	The ISDH does not determine the number of rounds of sampling that other agencies performs at a site. This document only reports the information that was available to us at the time of the writing of this document. We suggest referring this comment to the EPA.
17.	COMMENT	If intermediate wells were installed after Round I, how were 21 SVOCs detected during Rounds I and II?
	RESPONSE	The information was reviewed and appropriate changes were made to the document.
18.	COMMENT	Are all organic chemicals of concern on page 14?
	RESPONSE	Please see the first paragraph under Deep Wells.
19.	COMMENT	Your description of detection of no chemicals at levels of concern in storm water and leachate contradicts all previous site descriptions, why? Please provide us with your analysis of these values with Indiana Water Quality Standards.
	RESPONSE	The data was reviewed and appropriate changes were made to the document. Comparison values are provided to us by the ATSDR. These values are not compared to the Indiana Water Quality Standards. We select contaminants of concern based on comparative analyses with health guidelines, multi-media exposures, interactive effects, and community health concerns.
21.	COMMENT	We understand that there were problems with the original sediment samples as part of the RI/FS test of the Confined Disposal Facility. Please explain why some of the samples were unacceptable.
	RESPONSE	It is our understanding that there were some sediment samples taken by IDEM prior to the Remedial Investigation (RI); therefore, it would not have been included in the RI. This information will be requested and evaluated. Please note, however, that the results from this data would more than likely not change the conclusions and recommendations of this document as sediment is already considered a completed exposure pathway for individuals who eat fish taken from Trail Creek and those who participate in recreational activities at Trail Creek.
22.	COMMENT	Since deep groundwater flow is to Lake Michigan, the lead found in the deep well may be from the site.
	RESPONSE	This comment was reviewed and appropriate changes were made to the document.
23.	COMMENT	Please include the test results for lead. This information should be included along with the other chemicals identified in fish tissue samples from Trail Creek.
	RESPONSE	This information has been reviewed and appropriate changes made.
24.	COMMENT	There should be a discussion of bioaccumulation as an exposure route.
	RESPONSE	In determining exposures, bioaccumulation was taken into consideration.
25.	COMMENT	All fish tissue was sampled for chlordane, dieldrin, lead, DDT, DDE and other compounds; this information should be included.
	RESPONSE	This information was reviewed and the relevant section in the document was re-written.
26.	COMMENT	Air sampling should be done.
	RESPONSE	We agree with this comment. (Please see the Conclusions section of the Public Health Assessment.)
27.	COMMENT	How can your calculations include a child drinking 1 liter per day for 43 years? That sure would be an old child.
	RESPONSE	The narrative was reviewed, and appropriate changes were made to the document.
28.	COMMENT	Please identify the areas where background soil has 10,000 - 300,000 ppb lead.
	RESPONSE	These numbers were obtained from the United States Geological Survey Table. This table gives mean concentrations, deviations, and ranges of elements in samples of soil in the conterminous United States.
29.	COMMENT	Please review Dr. Rotkin's Cancer study on LaPorte County, especially the soft tissue, rare cancers he identified.
	RESPONSE	This study was reviewed as stated under the Community Health Concerns Evaluation section of the document.
30.	COMMENT	The information from the public relating to childhood cancer should be included.
	RESPONSE	This most valuable information will be added to the document and will be used in the Planned Community Health Study.
31.	COMMENT	It should be documented that heptachlor was detected by the FIT in both the on-site well and the raw water intake for Michigan City.
	RESPONSE	The FIT report of December 14, 1983, indicates that the results of 2 weeks of samples showed the presence of heptachlor above EPA drinking water standards. It also indicates that this chemical is not attributed to the industrial work of this site because it is an insecticide widely used by midwest farmers.
32.	COMMENT	Please provide us with the review of Dr. Rotkin's report by experts in the cancer field.
	RESPONSE	A copy of the review will be provided.
33.	COMMENT	Please include an estimate for exposure to people eating produce from gardens.
	RESPONSE	One of the data gaps mentioned in the Public Health Assessment is the lack of off-site surface soil samples. Estimated ingestion exposure doses cannot be determined without this information.
34.	COMMENT	Please put signs along the waterway warning people of the fish consumption advisory.
	RESPONSE	Although this may appear to be the solution to warning the community about the fish in Trail Creek, there are some practical and economical reasons why this is not done. We have found that signs along waterways prove more to be targets for vandalism than anything else. We do not have the funds to purchase warning signs, nor do we have the staff to install and maintain any warning signs. Individuals are warned, however, through the fish advisory which is given to each person getting their license to fish.
35.	COMMENT	Please let drinking water well users know about this issue.
	RESPONSE	It is our understanding that there are no private wells within a 1-mile radius that are being used for drinking water. We will, however, contact all owners of private wells and inform them of the potential dangers of using their wells for drinking purposes.
36.	COMMENT	The Indiana State Department of Health must support the cleanup alternative most protective of public health and the environment.
	RESPONSE	Our role is not one of risk management, but of protecting human health. It would be inappropriate for this agency to support one cleanup alternative over another. The role of the Environmental Epidemiology Section of the Indiana State Department of Health is to make recommendations to the appropriate agencies to ensure that the health of a community is not adversely affected by toxic chemicals emitted, spilled, or naturally occurring in the environment.

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