Skip directly to search Skip directly to A to Z list Skip directly to site content

PUBLIC HEALTH ASSESSMENT ADDENDUM

G & H LANDFILL
SHELBY TOWNSHIP, MACOMB COUNTY, MICHIGAN


SUMMARY

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) placed the G & H Landfill site on the National Priorities List(NPL) in September 1983. The Agency for Toxic Substances andDisease Registry (ATSDR) released a public health assessment forthe site in 1989. In August 1990, the final report from aRemedial Investigation (RI) at the site was released. The U.S.EPA signed a Record of Decision (ROD) for remediation at the sitein December 1990. The Michigan Department of Public Health(MDPH) reviewed the original G & H Landfill Health Assessment inlight of the new information from the RI and prepared thisAddendum.

In the G & H Landfill Health Assessment, the ATSDR concluded thatthe site was of indeterminate public health concern because ofpossible exposure to contaminants through use of contaminatedwater and consumption of contaminated wild animals and fish. TheRI has generated much new data on environmental contamination atthe site. The new information supports the conclusions andrecommendations from the original public health assessment.


BACKGROUND

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA)placed the G & H Landfill site on the National Priorities List(NPL) in September 1983.

A. Site Description and History

The G & H Landfill (G & H) site is south of 23 Mile Road and westof Ryan Road in Shelby Township, Macomb County, Michigan, betweenthe cities of Utica and Rochester (Figure 1 in Appendix A). Utica is approximately 4 miles southeast of the site. Rochesteris approximately the same distance northwest. The RemedialInvestigation (RI) field work was completed by CH2M Hill under aU.S. EPA contract in the summer of 1989. An interim report wasissued in July 1987 (CH2M Hill 1987), and the final RI report wasissued in August 1990 (CH2M Hill 1990). A SupplementalInvestigation was carried out under Michigan Department ofNatural Resources (MDNR) supervision at the same time as the laststages of the RI (Warzyn 1990). In December 1990, the U.S. EPAsigned a Record of Decision (ROD) that included capping thelandfill, installing a slurry wall around three sides of thelandfill, installing a leachate collection system on the fourthside, pumping and treating groundwater from south and east of thelandfill, providing municipal water to affected nearby residencesand businesses and closing their private wells, and excavatingand disposing of PCB-contaminated soils and sediments foundoutside the cap and slurry wall (EPA 1990).

The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR)released a public health assessment for the site in April 1989(ATSDR 1989a). This addendum is based on site information thathas become available since that public health assessment wasreleased, including the RI report released in August 1990.

The three disposal areas on the G & H Landfill property totalapproximately 70 acres (Phase I, 44 acres; Phase II, 17 acres;Phase III, 8 acres; see Figure 2 in Appendix A) (CH2M Hill 1990,p. 2-2). The original G & H Landfill Health Assessment gives thetotal area as 5 acres (ATSDR 1989a, p. 2). This incorrect figurewas taken from the Draft Interim RI Report (CH2M Hill 1987, p.8). The Site Description was otherwise accurate.

B. Site Visit

John Filpus of the Michigan Department of Public Health (MDPH)visited the site with Michigan Department of Natural Resources(MDNR) personnel on May 9, 1990, driving around the siteperimeter, and through a neighboring residential area to the eastof the site. They also walked the site, including the landfillproper and the oil seep area. The information obtained on thisvisit has been included in the descriptions and evaluationspresented in this public health assessment addendum.

C. Demographics, Land Use, and Natural Resource Use

The new information received does not require an alteration ofthis section from the original G & H Landfill Health Assessment.

D. Health Outcome Data

In 1982, in response to community concerns about health effectsrelated to the Liquid Disposal Incineration (LDI) NPL sitelocated 1 mile south of the G & H site (see Figure 1), the MDPHand the Macomb County Health Department (MCHD) conducted a surveyof health conditions in Shelby Township (MDPH/MCHD 1982). MDPH/MCHD researchers examined vital statistics files for 1970-1980, including files on live births, deaths, fetal deaths, andmatched infant births and deaths. The researchers also contactedphysicians in the area and the Michigan Department of Agriculture(MDA) to ascertain whether any pattern of human or animal illnesshad been seen in the site area.


COMMUNITY HEALTH CONCERNS

There were numerous complaints from neighboring residents aboutodors from the G & H property while the oil reclamation operationand the landfill were in operation. When a leachate seep wasfound on State Recreation Area property, people who used the areaexpressed concern about their health and safety. Odors from andaccidents at the LDI site have awakened health concerns amongresidents of the area surrounding LDI and G & H.

At one public meeting held by the U.S. EPA, a citizen expressedconcern that no official attention seemed to be paid to nearbyresidents' potential health problems from exposure to site-related contamination. The citizen asked if there was sometesting available to predict what health effects nearby residentsmight expect to see, citing blood testing for metals as was doneafter an incident at the LDI site. Another resident reportedthat a series of health problems had occurred at a school in thearea sometime in the past, but could not offer any details.


ENVIRONMENTAL CONTAMINANTS AND OTHER HAZARDS

Ninety-five chemicals have been detected at the G & H site,including volatile organic compounds (VOCs), polynuclear aromatichydrocarbons (PAHs), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)(1), dioxins,furans, pesticides, other semi-volatile organic compounds, andmetals (Table 1 in Appendix B). Concentrations of arsenic,benzene, lead, methylene chloride, PCBs, and vinyl chloride atthe site exceed the corresponding Environmental Media EvaluationGuides developed by the ATSDR.

A. On-Site Contamination

The predominant contaminant groups represented in the sourceareas of the site are the benzene-ethylbenzene-toluene-xylenegroup (BETX), chlorinated VOCs, PAHs, PCBs, and inorganicchemicals. The concentrations of selected contaminants ofconcern found on-site in wastes, shallow soils, surface soil andsediment are given in Table 2 in Appendix B. This includes datafrom Table 1 in the original G & H Landfill Health Assessmentsupplemented by data from the RI report.

Surface soil (top 6 inches) analysis for chlorinated dioxins andfurans and organochlorine pesticides (including DDT, DDE,Endosulfan I and II, Gamma-BHC (Lindane), Gamma-Chlordane, andheptachlor epoxide) found up to 1.1 (estimated) parts per billion(ppb) combined dioxins and furans and as much as 420 ppb totalpesticides. No 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (2,3,7,8-TCDD), the most toxic of the chlorinated dioxins, was found. Thechlorinated dioxins and dibenzofurans that were found have anestimated toxicity equivalent of less than 0.001 ppb of 2,3,7,8-TCDD(2). The Federal Centers for Disease Control (CDC) hasestablished a 1 ppb level of concern for 2,3,7,8-TCCD inresidential soils (ATSDR 1989b). No pattern was found to linkthe occasional detectable concentrations to site activities. PCBs were found in surface soils on the site at concentrations upto 2,200 ppb, in three areas: one of the former oil disposalponds, the center of the Phase I landfill, and near a now-closedentrance to the landfill off 23 Mile Road.

Test pits and soil borings in the Phase I landfill foundconcentrations of total dioxins and furans up to 68.9 ppb (0.0021ppb 2,3,7,8-TCDD equivalents)(3). Again, no 2,3,7,8-TCDD was foundin any subsurface sample.

B. Off-Site Contamination

Table 3 in Appendix B shows concentration ranges for contaminantsof potential concern at off-site sampling locations. Thisincludes data from Table 2 in the original G & H Landfill HealthAssessment supplemented by data from the final RI report.

The elevated lead levels (up to 1,300 ppb) found in off-sitemonitoring wells (Table 3) were attributed in the Interim RIReport to very alkaline conditions in the water (pH between 10.7and 11.9) caused by the cement used to grout the wells (CH2M Hill1987, p. 89). Under higher pH conditions, lead becomes moresoluble. However, this factor alone does not adequately explainthe source of the lead.

The wells in question are upgradient of the site. One is across23 Mile Road to the north of the site, the other is on Ryan Roadnear 23 Mile Road. Both wells are screened in a till layer,which does not have enough of a water flow to be a usableaquifer. Sampling of these wells in a later round of the RIfound as much as 185 ppb lead, much lower than in the earliertests but still exceeding the MCL for drinking water (50 ppb). Water from one other off-site monitoring well contained 34 ppblead, while that from other off-site wells contained much less(CH2M Hill 1990).

The 32 ppb vinyl chloride in ground water listed in Table 3 wasdetected in a well serving one of the businesses along Ryan Roadin August 1983. Sampling in December 1983 through 1986 found nodetectable vinyl chloride in this or any other residential well. The detection limit is not explicitly identified in the InterimRI Report, but the concentration in the sample identified as ablank is given as "<0.01 mg/L," suggesting that the detectionlevel was 10 ppb (CH2M Hill 1987, Appendix A). In 1988, the samewell contained 2 ppb vinyl chloride, as did one other nearbyindustrial well (CH2M Hill 1990, Figure 3-24).

Water from residential wells east of Ryan Road, sampled in 1984and 1985, contained low levels of various VOCs. The maximumlevels found of individual chemicals were 4 ppb cis-1,2-dichloroethylene, 3 ppb trichloroethylene, 1 ppb chloroform, 3ppb toluene, and 1 ppb xylene (MDPH 1991). Toluene and xylenewere only detected in one sample from one residential well. Subsequent sampling of the same well, a month later, foundneither chemical.

Off-site surface soil (top 6 inches) sampling found PCBs in onelocation, at 380 ppb, near the now-closed entrance to thelandfill mentioned above. This amount is not considered to be alevel of concern. Pesticide compounds, dioxins, and furans werealso found in off-site surface soil, at up to 150 ppb totalpesticides and 3.2 (estimated) ppb combined dioxins and furans(0.00012 ppb 2,3,7,8-TCDD equivalents)(4), with no apparent patternthat links the contamination to site-related activities. Thesepesticide and dioxin/furan concentrations in soils are not ofhuman health concern.

Of eight carp taken from the Clinton River above Utica in 1986,one contained 2.5 ppm of PCBs and the rest contained less than 1ppm. Two walleye taken at the same time contained 0.21 and 1.75ppm PCBs (MDNR 1986).

C. Quality Assurance and Quality Control

The surface soil samples in the RI were taken from the top 6inches of soil. These results may give a misleading impressionof the hazard from contact with surface soil or from fugitivedust. Sub-surface concentrations could be higher or lower thanthose on the surface which would affect the results reported fortop soil. Samples from the top three inches or less would give amore reliable measure of exposure potential through directcontact or inhalation.

In preparing this public health assessment addendum, MDPH reliedon the analytical data provided in the referenced documents andassumed that adequate quality assurance and quality controlmeasures were followed with regard to chain-of-custody,laboratory procedures, and data reporting. Quality assurance andquality control information presented in this document was takenfrom the source material. The validity of the analysis andconclusions drawn for this public health assessment addendum isdependent upon the reliability of the referenced information.

The values labeled "(estimated)" in the above text and "J" inTables 2 and 3 were identified as estimates by the laboratoriesthat did the analyses for the RI. The chemicals were detected inthe analyses at levels above the detection levels of theanalytical method but below the levels at which the results areconsidered reliable, or a quality assurance and quality controlindicator cast doubt on the reliability of the reported value.

The accuracy of the PCB measurement that found 252 ppm in onecarp from the Clinton River in 1983 has been challenged onquality assurance and control grounds. The exact reasons for thechallenge were not available for this review.

D. Physical and Other Hazards

Besides the potential danger from methane generated at the site,cited in the original public health assessment, there are noother significant physical hazards associated with the site. Thesite is fenced and posted, and highly contaminated areas havebeen fenced separately within the site fence. MDNR personnelreport that trespassers have gained access to the site since thefence was built.


PATHWAYS ANALYSES

A. Environmental Pathways (Fate and Transport)

Soils. The RI conducted limited off-site surface soil sampling,and found no pattern of site-related contamination. Some PCBcontamination was found near the site boundary.

The pesticide concentrations in the surface soil on the site are,in general, comparable to those found off-site. There are anumber of localized areas of higher concentrations on the site,but the concentrations are such that they should not pose ahealth hazard. As with the dioxins, the higher concentrationareas cover limited portions of the site, reducing the likelihoodof contact.

There is no new information to indicate any significant change inthe other pathways listed in the original document.

B. Human Exposure Pathways

The pathways analysis summarized in Table 3 of the original G & HLandfill Health Assessment is still applicable.

Vinyl chloride was found in one private (business) well at 32 ppbin 1983. Later sampling of the well did not find any of thechemical and the most recent sampling found 2 ppb. The companyhas provided bottled water for their employees to drink, and thefacility is currently connected to municipal water.

As a precaution, State and County health agencies advised theowners of residential wells that were found to be contaminatednot to use the wells, offered bottled water service to theresidents, and arranged for municipal water service to beextended into the area.

The very high lead concentrations reported in the ground waterwere found in monitoring wells screened in the till layer betweenthe aquifers. The till layer is not likely to be used as a watersupply, as water does not flow readily through it. The detectedhigh lead concentrations have also been attributed toconstruction materials used in the wells in question. Samplesfrom the usable aquifers did not have lead levels of healthconcern.

Because more than 10 percent of the carp collected from theClinton River have contained PCBs above the U.S. FDA Action Levelof 2 ppm, the MDPH has issued a fish consumption advisory for theClinton River (below the Yates Dam, including the G & Hvicinity). The advisory states that carp from the river shouldnot be eaten for more than one meal per week. Nursing mothers,pregnant women, women who intend to have children, and childrenunder age 15 are advised to not eat any of these fish (MDPH1992). The source of the PCBs in these carp has not been clearlyidentified, but MDPH and MDNR believe the contamination cannot besolely linked to the G & H Landfill. No other fish species hasshown contamination at levels of concern, so the advisory appliesonly to carp. This limited and non-binding advisory does notremove the fish consumption pathway from concern.


PUBLIC HEALTH IMPLICATIONS

The information in this section supplements the information inthe equivalent section in the original public health assessment.

A. Toxicological Evaluation

Chlorinated dioxins and dibenzofurans, chlorinated and aromaticVOCs, PAHs, PCBs, and heavy metals have been identified as thepredominant contaminant groups at the site and include thecompounds and elements of the greatest health concern.

Chlorinated dioxins and dibenzofurans as a class are consideredto be probable human carcinogens (U.S. EPA Class B2). There isgreat variability in the individual isomer potency and the mosttoxic and carcinogenic isomer, 2,3,7,8-TCDD, was not detected onthe site. When the dioxins and furans are converted to 2,3,7,8-TCDD equivalents, using equivalency coefficients in Table 4.1(ATSDR 1989b), the equivalent level in the surface soil is threeorders of magnitude (a thousand times) lower than the U.S. EPAclean-up standard of 1.0 ppb for residential soils. Thus thereis only a slight health concern for these compounds unlesserosion brings them to the surface and/or to the Clinton Riverwhere they could enter the food chain.

Polychlorinated biphenyls are similar to the chlorinated dioxinsand dibenzofurans in that they are a mixture of many isomers, arestrongly adsorbed to soil, and are considered probablecarcinogens (U.S. EPA Class B2) (ATSDR 1989c). Elevated levelswere found in soil samples at the site but it is unlikely therewill be significant exposure to them. Studies of other siteswith much higher concentrations of PCBs in the surface soils havenot demonstrated the uptake of toxicologically significant levelsin on-site workers. The principal concern with PCBs is that thecontaminated sediments could be eroded to the river where theycould bioconcentrate and/or biomagnify in the fish to a level ofconcern.

Chlorinated volatile organic compounds have been found in theground water both on- and off-site. Trichloroethylene (TCE)levels exceeding the U.S. EPA-promulgated Maximum ContaminantLevel (MCL) of 5 ppb for drinking water have been found inmonitoring wells and off-site private (industrial) wells. Long-term consumption or household utilization of water containing TCEat levels greater than the MCL may increase one's risk ofcontracting cancer (ATSDR 1989d).

Similarly vinyl chloride (classified as a human carcinogen [U.S.EPA Class A]) was found in monitoring wells and in off-siteprivate (industrial) wells at levels at and above the MCL of 2.0ppb (ATSDR 1989e). Long-term consumption or householdutilization of water containing vinyl chloride at the levelsfound at and near the site may increase one's risk of contractingcancer. None of the residential wells sampled in the areacontained any chemicals at or above levels of public healthconcern, including the MCLs. The owners of the wells that showedany contamination were offered replacement water supplies as aprecaution.

Non-halogenated aromatic VOCs were also found in the ground waterat this site. While benzene, a human carcinogen (U.S. EPA ClassA), did not exceed the MCL in off-site private wells, it waspresent in monitoring wells considerably above the MCL value of5.0 ppb (ATSDR 1989f). Related aromatic hydrocarbons, toluene,xylenes, and ethyl benzene, were also found at high levels in theground water but did not exceed proposed MCLs off-site. MostVOCs are more mobile in soils than semi-volatile organics such asPCBs and PAHs and thus when they are present there is always thepossibility that they will migrate to the ground water. Sincethe carcinogenic VOCs can have an effect at low levels over along period of time, there is a potential adverse impact on humanhealth from the compounds at this site.

Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons were found in high levels inthe soils on site and in the Clinton River sediments. However,these compounds have not been found in either the ground watermonitoring wells or the river water, and thus, it is unlikelythere would ever be exposure to levels that could cause anincrease in cancer incidence or other adverse effects.

Lead, chromium, and arsenic are all toxic metals that were foundin high levels in the soils and sediments. However, only leadwas found at levels exceeding the MCL in the ground water.Because lead is a cumulative poison that affects the nervoussystem it is especially important to ensure that young childrenare not exposed to drinking water containing elevated levels ofthis metal (ATSDR 1990). To date the elevated lead levels atthis site have only been detected in unusable aquifers.

B. Health Outcome Data Evaluation

The 1982 MDPH/MCHD study found no significant difference inmortality in the Shelby Township compared to Macomb County or theState of Michigan for the period 1970-1980 (MDPH/MCHD 1982). Theinfant death rate for Township hospitals was high in the early1970s, but by including only those cases where the mothers wereTownship residents at the time of birth, the rate was reduced toone comparable to the State and County. Age-adjusted death ratesfrom cancer, heart disease, stroke, and accidents were slightlylower in the Township than in the State or County. The incidenceof low birth weight was slightly lower in the Township than inthe State or County. Physicians in the area reported complaintsabout odors from LDI, but no health complaints were reportedexcept for an individual who was exposed to chemicals on the siteat the time of an accident that also took two lives. Specialistsfound no chronic effects in this individual. Veterinarians inthe area had reported no unusual health effects to the MDA.

C. Community Health Concerns Evaluation

In response to public concern about oil seeps in the Rochester-Utica State Recreation Area near the G & H Landfill, the MDNRclosed and posted the section of the Recreation Area bounded bythe landfill property, the Clinton River, and Ryan Road in 1983. A Community Information Committee and a local telephone answeringservice (at (313) 651-9358) have been provided by the MDNR toallow communication between the community, the MDNR, and the U.S.EPA.

The citizen who asked about health testing was advised that therewas no testing available that would predict future illness frompast exposure. The primary site-related contaminants that nearbyresidents might be exposed to are volatile organic chemicals thatdo not remain or accumulate in the body.

In the absence of further details on the incident, it has provenimpossible to verify the report of health problems at an areaschool. Personnel at the Macomb County Health Department couldnot recall any similar incident reported to them (Shoemaker1991). The 1982 MDPH/MCHD study included sampling and analysisof soil from 12 schools in the LDI/G & H vicinity. Nocontamination was found (MDPH/MCHD 1982).


CONCLUSIONS

The conclusions drawn in the original G & H Landfill HealthAssessment do not need to be changed based on the newinformation. The site poses an indeterminate health hazard.


RECOMMENDATIONS

The MDPH supports the recommendations made in the original G & HLandfill Health Assessment (ATSDR 1989a). In addition, the MDPHrecommends that the elevated lead levels found in ground waterfrom the off-site till layer monitoring wells be evaluatedfurther.

The G & H Landfill site has been evaluated with regards tofollow-up health activities by the ATSDR Health ActivitiesRecommendation Panel (HARP). No further health activities arerecommended at this time. State and Local Health authoritieshave been educating the area residents about the health threat intheir area, and should be encouraged to continue. Though pastexposures to chemical contaminants have occurred, the exposureslasted a short time, and the concentrations were low, so healthstudies are not feasible. There have been no verifiableallegations of adverse health effects relating to the site. Should further evidence of significant exposure or of adversehealth effects related to the site become available, the ATSDRwill reevaluate this site for further health activities.


PUBLIC HEALTH ACTIONS

State and local health authorities are conducting healtheducation about area health threats for the residents in thecommunity around the site. At this time, no further healthactions are proposed. EPA and state regulatory authorities areprovided copies of this document to review recommendations.


PREPARERS OF REPORT

John W. Filpus, Environmental Engineer
John L. Hesse, Primary Investigator
James Bedford, Environmental Toxicologist
Michigan Department of Public Health


ATSDR REGIONAL REPRESENTATIVE

Louise Fabinski
Public Health Advisor
Field Operations Branch, Region V


ATSDR Technical Project Officer

Richard Gillig
Division of Health Assessment and Consultation
Remedial Programs Branch


CERTIFICATION

This Public Health Assessment Addendum was prepared by theMichigan Department of Public Health under a cooperativeagreement with the Agency for Toxic Substances and DiseaseRegistry (ATSDR). It is in accordance with approved methodologyand procedures existing at the time the public health assessmentwas initiated.

Gail D. Godfrey
Technical Project Officer, SPS, RPB, DHAC


The Division of Health Assessment and Consultation, ATSDR, hasreviewed this public health assessment and concurs with itsfindings.

Director, DHAC, ATSDR


REFERENCES

ATSDR. 1989a. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry,Health Assessment for G & H Landfill National Priorities ListSite, April 12, 1989.

ATSDR. 1989b. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry,Toxicological Profile for 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin,ATSDR/TP-88/23, June 1989.

ATSDR. 1989c. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry,Toxicological Profile for Selected PCBs (Aroclor-1260, -1254,-1248, -1242, -1232, -1221, and -1016), ATSDR/TP-88/21, June1989.

ATSDR. 1989d. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry,Toxicological Profile for Trichloroethylene, ATSDR/TP-88/24,October 1989.

ATSDR. 1989e. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry,Toxicological Profile for Vinyl Chloride, ATSDR/TP-88/25, August1989.

ATSDR. 1989f. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry,Toxicological Profile for Benzene, ATSDR/TP-88/03, May 1989.

ATSDR. 1990. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry,Toxicological Profile for Lead, ATSDR/TP-88/17, June 1990.

CH2M Hill. 1987. CH2M Hill, Remedial Investigation TechnicalReport, G & H Landfill, 1987.

CH2M Hill. 1990. CH2M Hill, Remedial Investigation Report, G &H Landfill Site, Shelby Township, Michigan, August 1990.

EPA. 1990. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Record ofDecision for the G & H Landfill site, December 1990.

MDNR. 1986. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, fishcontaminant data, unpublished, 1986.

MDPH/MCHD. 1982. Michigan Department of Public Health andMacomb County Health Department, Evaluation of Community Exposureand Health Effects, Progress Report - LDI, Macomb County, July1982.

MDPH. 1991. Michigan Department of Public Health, Bureau ofEnvironmental and Occupational Health, Division of Water Supply,water sampling data, unpublished, August 29, 1991.

MDPH. 1992. Michigan Department of Public Health, Public HealthAdvisory, in Michigan Department of Natural Resources, 1992Michigan Fishing Guide, pp. 21-4, 1992.

Shoemaker. 1991. Shoemaker, C., Macomb County HealthDepartment, personal communications, August 20 and 27, 1991.

Warzyn. 1990. Warzyn Engineering, Report: Project No. 60474,Supplemental Investigation, G & H Industrial Fill Site, ShelbyTownship, Michigan, February 1990.


APPENDIX A: FIGURES

Site Location Map
Figure 1. Site Location Map

Waste Disposal Areas
Figure 2. Waste Disposal Areas


APPENDIX B: TABLES

TABLE 1. LIST OF COMPOUNDS DETECTED AT THE G & H SITE

Bold Face indicates potential compounds of concern from the risk assessment in CH2M Hill 1990.

POLYNUCLEAR AROMATIC COMPOUNDS

OTHER SEMI-VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPUNDS

PHALOGENATED ALKANES AND ALKENES

     
Acenaphthene Benzoic Acid Carbon tetrachloride
Acenaphtylene Bis (2-chloroethyl) ether Chloroform
Anthracene Chlorobenezene Chloroethane
Benzo [a] anthracene Dibenzofuran 1,1-Dichloroethane
Benzo [b] fluoranthene   1,2-Dichloroethane
Benzo [k] fluoranthene

POLYCHLORINATED
BIPHENYLS

1,1-Dichloroethylene
Benzo [g,h,i] perylene   1,2-Dichloroethylene
Benzo [a] pyrene Aroclor 1248 Methylene chloride
Chrysene Aroclor 1254 Tetrachloroethylene
Dibenzo {a,h] anthracene Aroclor 1260 1,1,1-Trichloroethane
Fluoranthene   1,1,2-Trichloroethane
Fluorene

DIOXINS and FURANS

Trichloroethylene
Indeno [1,2,3,-cd] pyrene   Vinyl chloride
2-Methylnaphthalene Heptachlorodioxin  
Naphthalene Heptachlorodibenzofuran

OTHER VOLATILE
ORGANIC COMPOUNDS

Phenanthrene Hexachlorodibenzodioxin  
Pyrene Hexachlorodibenzofuran Styrene
  Octachlorodibenzodioxin Carbon disulfide

PHENOLIC COMPOUNDS

Tetrachlorodibenzofuran  
  Pentachlorodibenzodioxin

INORGANIC CHEMICALS

2,4-Dinitrophenol Pentachlorodibenzofuran  
2-Methylphenol   Aluminum
4-Methlyphenol

PESTICIDES

Antimony
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine   Arsenic
Phenol Chlordane Barium
  4,4'-DDE Beryllium

PHTHALATES

4,4'-DDT Cadmium
  delta-BHC Calcium
Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate Endosulfan I Chromium
Butylbenzylphthalate Endosulflan II Cobalt
Diethylphthalate gamma-BHC (Lindane) Copper
Dimethylphthalate Heptachlor Cyanide
Di-n-butylphthalate Heptachlor epoxide Iron
Di-n-octylphthalate   Lead
 

BENZENE/ETHYLBENZENE/
TOLUENE/XYLENE (BETX)

Magnesium

KETONES

  Manganese
  Benzene Mercury
Acetone Ethylbenzene Nickel
2-Butanone Toluene Potassium
2-Hexanone Xylene Selenium
4-Methyl-2-pentanone   Silver
    Sodium
    Thallium
    Vanadium
    Zinc


TABLE 2. SELECTED ON-SITE CONTAMINANTS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN
(ATSDR 1989a, Table 1; CH2M Hill 1990)

CONSTITUENT WASTES
(TEST PIT DATA)
SHALLOW SOILS
(DEPTH 0-1 FT.)
SURFACE SOILS AND SEDIMENT WHERE LEACHATE DISCHARGES
Methylene Chloride ND - 280,000 ND - 140 ND
Vinyl Chloride ND ND ND
Ethylbenzene ND - 6,300,000 ND - 1J ND - 25,000
Xylenes (total) ND - 19,000,000 ND - 8 ND - 180,000
1,2-Dichloroethylene ND - 15,000,000 ND - 2J ND
Chlorobenzene ND - 220,000 ND ND - 1,400
Toluene ND - 15,000,000 6 - 10 ND - 64,000
Trichloroethylene ND - 3,100,000 ND ND
Benzene ND - 190,000 ND ND - 5,000
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate ND - 1,500,000 38J - 320J ND - 5,500,000
PAHs ND - 884,000 ND - 74,260 ND - 220,000
PCBs ND - 134,700 ND - 2,200 ND - 74,000
Arsenic ND - 80,800 ND - 9,800 4,000 - 12,000
Chromium ND - 9,840,000 6 - 21,000 5,100 - 37,000
Cadmium ND - 70,000 ND 100 - 100,000
Lead ND - 42,200,000 ND - 76,000 5,700 - 16,000
Mercury ND - 188,000 ND - 1,900 ND

Table 2. (cont.)

CONSTITUENT CANAL AND PONDS Ground water
(MONITORING WELLS)
SURFACE WATER SEDIMENT
Methylene Chloride ND - 110 ND - 1,000 ND - 3,200
(1,630,000P)
Vinyl Chloride ND - 7 ND ND - 1,200
Ethylbenzene ND - 350 ND - 60 ND - 24,000,000
Xylenes (total) ND - 7,000 ND - 330 ND - 15,000
(92,340,000P)
1,2-Dichloroethylene ND ND ND - 8,400
Chlorobenzene ND ND ND - 140
Toluene ND - 2,200 ND - 140 ND - 15,000
(4,980,000P)
Trichloroethylene ND - 200 ND ND - 22
Benzene ND - 780 ND - 9 ND - 1,500
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate ND - 2,680,000 ND - 56,000 ND - 680,000
PAHs ND - 60
(139,000JP)
ND - 7,920 ND - 614J
(1,800,000P)
PCBs ND - 6.8
(526,000JP)
ND - 21,000 ND - 39
(189P)
Arsenic ND - 298 3,000 - 525,000 ND - 307
Chromium ND - 32 6,000 - 381,000 ND - 170
Cadmium ND ND - 3,200 ND - 11
Lead ND - 183 4,700J - 466,000 ND - 53
Mercury ND - 1.9 ND - 1,940 ND - 0.5

MAMMALS (FROM RECREATION AREA)

CONSTITUENT RACCOON OPOSSUM MUSKRAT
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate ND 7,800 - 40,900 ND
4,4'-DDT ND - 7,300 ND - 2,020 ND
4,4'-DDE ND - 7,290 ND - 2,950 10 - 17
PCBs 640 - 5,180 ND - 4,460 ND

Sampling conducted 1983 to 1989
Values in parts per billion, unless otherwise noted
ND - Not detected
P - Non-aqueous phase composition
J - Estimated value

Data qualifiers indicating blank contamination not reported.


TABLE 3. SELECTED OFF-SITE CONTAMINANTS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN
(ATSDR 1989a, Table 2; CH2M Hill 1990)

GROUND WATER

CONSTITUENT MONITORING WELLS BUSINESS AND PRIVATE WATER WELLS
Methylene Chloride ND - 28 ND - 123
Vinyl Chloride ND ND - 32
Ethylbenzene ND - 16 ND
Xylenes (total) ND - 6 ND - 1
1,1-Dichloroethane ND ND - 4
1,2-Dichloroethylene ND - 15 ND - 25
Toluene ND - 27 ND - 5
Trichloroethylene ND ND - 40
Benzene ND - 19 ND - 0.8
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate ND - 480 NR
Arsenic ND - 12.2 ND - 23
Chromium ND - 36 ND
Cadmium ND - 12 ND
Lead ND - 1,300 ND
Mercury ND - 0.5 ND - 0.4

PONDS NORTH OF 23 MILE ROAD

CONSTITUENT SURFACE WATER SEDIMENT
Methylene Chloride ND - 21 3J - 51
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate ND - 22 ND - 93
Arsenic ND - 1.6 ND - 1,700
Chromium ND 6.3 - 4,300
Lead ND - 19 6.2J - 3,500
Mercury ND - 5.5J ND

CLINTON RIVER

CONSTITUENT SURFACE WATER SEDIMENT
Methylene Chloride ND ND - 10
Xylenes (total) ND - 8 ND - 3
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate 7 - 132 ND - 3,054
PAHs ND ND - 16,300
Arsenic ND ND - 4,500
Chromium ND - 116 4,000 - 35,000
Cadmium ND ND - 370
Lead ND - 8.2 1,300 - 55,000

CONSTITUENT FISH
PCBs ND - 252,000

Sampling conducted 1983 to 1989
Values in parts per billion, unless otherwise noted
ND - Not detected
NR - Not Reported
Data qualifiers indicating blank contamination not reported.


Table 4. Comparison Values
(ppb, except where noted)

Contaminant
Environmental Medium
 
Soil
Sediment
Surface Water*
Ground Water
Biota**
   
Methylene Chloride
3,000,0001
3,000,0001
6004
6004
0.06
Vinyl Chloride
1,0001
1,0001
0.24
0.24
0.00002
Ethylbenzene
5,000,0002
5,000,0002
1,0005
1,0005
0.1
Xylenes (total)
100,000,0002
100,000,000
20,0005
20,0005
2
1,1-Dichloroethane
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1,2-Dichloroethylene
1,000,0002
1,000,0002
2005
2005
0.02
Chlorobenzene
1,000,0002
1,000,0002
2005
2005
0.02
Toluene
10,000,0002
10,000,000
2,0005
2,0005
0.2
Trichloroethylene
NA
NA
56
56
0.1
Benzene
24,0003
24,0003
1.27
1.27
0.029
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
NA

NA

NA
NA
NA
PAHs
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
PCBs
2501
2501
0.051
0.051
0.000005
Arsenic
15,0002
15,0002
32
32
0.0003
Chromium+
250,0002
250,0002
502
502
0.005
Cadmium
10,0001
10,0001
21
21
0.0002
Lead
NA
NA
504
504
NA
Mercury
NA
NA
75
75
0.0008
4,4'-DDT
2,1003
2,1003
0.13
0.13
0.0004
4,4'-DDE
2,1003
2,1003
0.13
0.13
0.34

* = Surface water comparison values are based on the assumption that the water may be used as a drinking water source. The comparison value is not based on the use of surface water for wading or swimming.
** = Biota comparison values are based upon consumption of enough of the contaminated biota to result in a daily dose equaling or exceeding the provided values. The values are either ATSDR's chronic oral Minimal Risk Level, EPA's chronic oral Reference Dose, or EPA' oral slope factor, whichever value is lowest. Units are in mg/kg/day for the Minimal Risk Level and Reference Dose and in (mg/kg/d)-1 for the oral slope factor.
+ = Assumes all chromium is hexavalent

1 = Environmental Medium Evaluation Guide (child's ingestion of soil or water, whichever is appropriate)2
2 = Calculated from the Reference Dose (child's ingestion of soil or water, whichever is appropriate)
3 = Calculated from the Cancer Slope Factor (soil or water ingestion, whichever is appropriate)
4 = Maximum Contaminant Level
5 = Assuming inorganic mercury


APPENDIX C: RESPONSIVENESS STATEMENT

A draft of this addendum to the health assessment for the G & HLandfill site was released for public comment on April 29, 1992. The public comment period was open until May 29, 1992. Nocomments from the public were received in this period.


1. All PCBs are considered as one chemical in the count of 95. Information on specific PCB chemicals, by degree of chlorination and isomer, is not available.
2. Equivalents calculated based on values in (ATSDR 1989b),Table 4.1.
3. Another sample contained dioxins and furans totalling 42.5 ppb, equivalent to 0.043 ppb 2,3,7,8-TCDD.
4. Another sample contained 0.00078 ppb 2,3,7,8-TCDD equivalents from 1.655 (est.) ppb total dioxins and furans.


Next Section     Table of Contents

  
 
USA.gov: The U.S. Government's Official Web PortalDepartment of Health and Human Services
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, 4770 Buford Hwy NE, Atlanta, GA 30341
Contact CDC: 800-232-4636 / TTY: 888-232-6348

A-Z Index

  1. A
  2. B
  3. C
  4. D
  5. E
  6. F
  7. G
  8. H
  9. I
  10. J
  11. K
  12. L
  13. M
  14. N
  15. O
  16. P
  17. Q
  18. R
  19. S
  20. T
  21. U
  22. V
  23. W
  24. X
  25. Y
  26. Z
  27. #