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


APPENDIX D: THE ORIGINAL G & H LANDFILL HEALTH ASSESSMENT


HEALTH ASSESSMENT

G&H LANDFILL NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST (NPL) SITE
MACOMB COUNTY, MICHIGAN
EPA FACILITY ID: MID980410823


TABLE OF CONTENTS

SUMMARY

BACKGROUND

ENVIRONMENTAL CONTAMINATION AND OTHER HAZARDS

DEMOGRAPHICS

EVALUATION

PUBLIC HEALTH IMPLICATIONS

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

PREPARERS OF REPORT

REFERENCES

APPENDICES



SUMMARY

The G&H Landfill National Priorities List (NPL) site is located in Macomb County, Michigan, near the Town of Utica. The landfill initially operated as a waste oil reclamation facility. Later, the facility operated as a municipal waste landfill until its closure in 1973. Releases from the landfill have contaminated surface water, sediments, and soils with aromatic hydrocarbons, polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH's), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB's), and other organic and inorganic chemicals. Elevated concentrations of PCB's and other chemicals were detected in wild animals from south of the landfill and in fish from the Clinton River. However, other sources may have contributed to contamination of the Clinton River. Several businesses and residences east of the site are reportedly using groundwater supply wells for potable and non-potable purposes. The site is currently fenced to restrict access, and only properly protected personnel have access to on-site contaminated areas.

This site is of potential health concern because of the risk to human health resulting from possible exposure to hazardous substances at concentrations that may result in adverse health effects. Exposure pathways of potential health concern include the use of contaminated groundwater for potable and non-potable purposes and the consumption of contaminated wild animals and fish from the Clinton River area.


BACKGROUND

A. SITE DESCRIPTION

The G&H Landfill (G&H) site is south of 23 Mile Road and west of Ryan Road in Macomb County, Michigan, near the town of Utica. It was placed on the NPL by the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Information developed in ongoing remedial investigation (RI) activities is summarized in an interim RI report (CH2M Hill, 1987). A Record of Decision (ROD) is scheduled for issue in the fall of 1990.

The Liquid Disposal Inc. (LDI) site, also on the NPL, is located approximately 1/2 mile south of the G&H property, just beyond the Clinton River. LDI operated a commercial hazardous waste incinerator and injected waste brines into the ground. Containerized wastes have been removed from the LDI site as an interim remedial measure. It is conceivable that contaminants released from LDI, in part, might have migrated to one or more of the environmental media that have been affected by releases from G&H.

The G&H landfill is located on approximately 100 acres and consists of three disposal areas encompassing approximately 5 acres. A security fence (with warning signs) has been erected around the landfill and encompasses a large area to the south which includes remnants of the Clinton-Kalamazoo Canal. For this Health Assessment, the site (on-site) is identified as the fenced area.

A segment of the canal on-site has been filled with refuse. An abandoned railroad bed crosses the property in a northwest-to-southeast direction, and an easement with buried utilities crosses the western part of the site in a generally north-south direction. The easement contains large (up to 96-inch diameter) sanitary sewers and a City of Detroit water-distribution pipeline. Both lines were installed below natural ground surface and backfilled with native soils. The Clinton River is immediately west of the site and bends toward the southeast, beyond the canal. At Ryan Road, the river is approximately 1/2 mile south of the site.

The landfill was developed in three phases. The Original Disposal Area (Phase I) is northeast of the railroad bed, extending northward to 23 Mile Road and eastward to within approximately 500 feet of Ryan Road. The Phase II Landfill occupies a triangular area immediately southwest of the railroad bed and east of the utility easement. The Phase III Landfill is a western expansion of the Phase II Landfill. It is bounded by the utility easement to the east, the Clinton River floodplain to the west, and the railroad bed to the north.

Operations began in the Phase I area in 1955. Bulk waste oil from a variety of sources was pumped into unlined ponds. An estimated 650,000 gallons of oil per month were being accepted at the site. Personnel familiar with operations estimate that approximately one half of the waste oil received was eventually reclaimed. The site also received solvents, paint residues, industrial process sludges, varnishes, and general refuse. An unknown number of drums were buried in the landfill areas. By 1966, the site was being used as the township dump and received large volumes of municipal refuse each day. Reports of co-disposal of liquid industrial waste (excluding oil) with refuse were noted by state personnel. Oil reclamation activities stopped in 1967 when the state prohibited disposal of liquid hazardous waste, and non-liquid wastes were deposited in the oil pits and elsewhere. The Phase II and Phase III landfill areas received mainly refuse materials. From 1967 until closure in 1973, all filling was conducted under a state permit.

Soil caps were constructed over the three disposal areas. Investigations indicate that the caps are sandy or clayey materials and vary in thickness from a few inches to a few feet. Portions of the cap are missing in some landfill areas, and wastes are exposed at the surface. A small pond was constructed at the western end of the site for runoff and leachate. A number of other small, man-made ponds south of the railroad bed, next to the Phase I unit, also receive surface runoff and leachate, including oily liquids. In the 1980's, some containment berms and curtain-walls were constructed under EPA's supervision to collect the oily residue. Oil continues to collect in these containments and is periodically transferred to on-site storage tanks for subsequent transport off the property.

The site is located in what was originally relatively flat to gently rolling terrain that sloped to the southeast. The capped surface of each fill area is approximately the same elevation as 23 Mile Road, but the grade is irregular and contains depressions. Slopes at the edge of the fill areas are steep. Surface elevation along the railroad bed is lower than the landfilled areas, and the ground surface beyond the southern and western limits of the landfill slopes steeply to the river floodplain. When the river floods, it possibly inundates low-lying areas near, or along, the south and west edges of the site. Grass, brush, small trees and exposed refuse cover two landfill areas, and the third area is thinly vegetated.

B. SITE VISIT

ATSDR staff conducted a site visit on November 1, 1988. The information obtained has been included in the descriptions and evaluations presented in this Health Assessment.


ENVIRONMENTAL CONTAMINATION AND PHYSICAL HAZARDS

A. ON-SITE CONTAMINATION

Monitoring has disclosed that several volatile organic compounds (VOC's), semi-volatile compounds, and heavy- metal contaminants are present in the waste materials and environmental media. The concentrations for contaminants of potential concern found on-site are given in Table 1 of the Appendices.

B. OFF-SITE CONTAMINATION

Table 2 in the Appendices lists the off-site monitoring data for the contaminants of potential concern. Comparing off-site monitoring data for groundwater obtained at monitoring wells and private (domestic and commercial) wells with on-site data shows that contaminant levels off-site are substantially less. Contaminant levels for off-site surface water and sediments also are considerably lower than in corresponding media on-site. The off-site ponds located north of 23 Mile Road are topographically and hydrogeologically upgradient from the site. Monitoring data for off-site surface soil are not included in reference documents.

C. PHYSICAL HAZARDS

The landfill contains refuse and other materials that can decompose and generate methane, which can be highly explosive if allowed to accumulate in an enclosed environment.


DEMOGRAPHICS

G&H is on the southwest edge of a geographic area that has changed over the life of the landfill from relatively rural to suburban in character. Housing developments are located east of Ryan Road and north of 23 Mile Road. Immediately north of 23 Mile Road, an area containing ponds developed by gravel mining is being converted to a waterfront housing development. A light industrial facility, a petroleum bulk plant, and an inactive auto-salvage yard occupy an area between the landfill and Ryan Road. A state recreation area located to the west and south of the site is not available for development and is used extensively for fishing, hunting, trapping, and hiking.

The issues affecting public health and conclusions described in subsequent sections are based on the demography and land use outlined above. Should the demography or land use change substantively, the health issues and conclusions would need to be reconsidered.


EVALUATION

A. SITE CHARACTERIZATION (DATA NEEDS AND EVALUATION)

1. Environmental Media

Although monitoring data in the RI report provide considerable information about environmental media, additional characterization is needed for some media to further evaluate potential exposures to contaminants and possible human health concerns. Additional information needs include:

  • Periodic groundwater monitoring data at residential water-supply wells located east and southeast of the site in the direction of groundwater flow. Samples should be analyzed, initially, for constituents on the Hazardous Substance List (HSL).
  • Surface soil monitoring data off-site at adjacent businesses, nearby residences, and the recreation area. Surface-soil data included in reference documents was obtained on-site, and essentially all the locations sampled were within the capped landfill. Therefore, the available data may be more representative of cap soils rather than of surface soils that were exposed during landfill operations. If surface soils around residences are found to contain substantial levels of contaminants, and if residents grow consumable plants, an appropriate evaluation of representative plants should be initiated.
  • Air-quality monitoring data for methane and other gasses in nearby business and residential buildings.

2. Land Use and Demographics

Land use and demographics have been adequately characterized. This health assessment is based on the on-site areas remaining undeveloped. If the site is developed or is used in a way that increases contaminant releases, this assessment would need to be reconsidered.

3. Quality Control and Quality Assurance

ATSDR assumes that the analytic data provided by EPA have been reviewed by them and have met their acceptability criteria. The conclusions in this Health Assessment were based on the information received, and the accuracy of these conclusions is determined by the availability and reliability of the supplied information.

B. ENVIRONMENTAL PATHWAYS

Soil, groundwater, surface water, sediment, air, and food-chain pathways potentially are a source of concern at this site because organic chemicals and metals are present in these media. Although the nearby LDI site possibly has contributed contaminants to the Clinton River (via runoff or groundwater discharge) and also to surface soils near the G&H site (via incinerator airborne releases), it is not practical to differentiate the contaminant sources in addressing these media.

Soils--Surface soils may have become contaminated on-site by surface runoff from the landfill, or through suspension and redeposition of contaminants by wind, or possibly through improper disposal activities. Most of these processes are also likely to have contaminated surface soils off-site; but monitoring data for surface soils are not available in reference documents to confirm whether this has occurred and, if so, to what extent.

Subsurface soils on-site have become contaminated by infiltration of liquid wastes or percolation of leachate generated by infiltrating rain water or ponded water. Some contaminants may be retained (sorbed) by the subsurface soils, and some have migrated to groundwater which transports them to its points of discharge (i.e., ponds, canal and river). Methane gas, a potentially major product of organic-waste decomposition, may be generated and may travel laterally through the subsurface soils. Future remedial activities may expose contaminants that are presently below ground surface and render them susceptible to transport by runoff or by air.

Groundwater--Groundwater has become contaminated through migration of liquid wastes and leachate. Monitoring data and hydrogeologic information indicate that contaminants are principally within the water-table aquifer. The depth to groundwater in the landfill vicinity typically is less than 25 feet below land surface.

Groundwater movement at the site is controlled primarily by the composition, characteristics, and geometry of three hydrogeologic zones. These include an upper sand zone which is a water-table aquifer, an intermediate glacial till zone, and lower zones which consist of water-bearing sand and underlying sandstone bedrock. Excavations for waste disposal have not extended below the upper sand zone. The till appears to have a significantly lower hydraulic conductivity than the upper or lower sand zones, and groundwater is thought to move principally in the sand zones. Hydraulic head (i.e., water pressure) is greater in the upper than in the lower sand zone, indicating some movement of water (and entrained contaminants) from the water-table aquifer into the lower sand.

Groundwater, in general, flows laterally from north to south and discharges into the Clinton River. However, in the northeast portion of the site, a localized groundwater mound within the water-table aquifer appears to divert flow towards the east and west. The diverted groundwater appears to flow toward the businesses and residences along Ryan Road. Elsewhere on the site, flow in the water-table aquifer is toward the south, except at the western-most edge of the site where groundwater flows in a westerly direction. The water-table aquifer appears to crop out along low-lying areas to the south and west of the site, and some groundwater may discharge onto the ground surface there. Groundwater flow within the lower sand and underlying sandstone bedrock appears to be to the south, and west, toward the river.

Residents along Ryan Road, east of the site, obtain their water supply from groundwater wells and use the water for potable and household purposes. Although businesses on Ryan Road also have groundwater supply wells, they reportedly use bottled water for potable purposes and groundwater for industrial needs. Other water-supply wells located a considerable distance upgradient of the site are not expected to be affected. The residenial subdivision immediately north of 23 Mile Road uses a public water supply. There are no water-supply wells south and west, between the site and the river. Many area supply wells are shallow and likely withdraw water from the upper sand zone.

Surface Water and Sediment--Runoff water becomes contaminated at the site as it entrains contaminants from surface soils, exposed wastes, leachate discharges, and drainage courses. Contaminated surface water also may originate as seepage where the contaminated water-table aquifer crops out in low-lying portions of the site. In general, surface water and contaminants discharge to ponds in the south and west portions of the site. Any runoff which bypasses the ponds (and any pond overflow) appears to discharge mostly into the canal and the Clinton River. However, landfill units have some surface depressions which restrict surface runoff and, instead, promote water infiltration to the underlying wastes and then to groundwater. Also, some particles entrained by surface runoff may be deposited as sediment along the transport route. Monitoring has shown that river water and river sediments upstream and downstream from the G&H and LDI sites have been contaminated.

Topographic data and observations indicate that surface water is not likely to drain northward to ponds and residential areas across 23 Mile Road. Ryan Road has no known culverts, and, therefore, site runoff is unlikely to reach the residential areas to the east.

Frequency of site flooding by the river, if any, is not known. The river reportedly is not used for drinking water or for swimming.

Air--Wind currents periodically may suspend contaminant particles and transport them and volatilized organic compounds to other areas on-site and off-site. Reference documents do not include air-quality data or surface soil monitoring data to confirm whether substantial airborne migration occurs. Future remedial activities which involve excavation or disruption of contaminated soil or waste may significantly increase the amount of suspended contaminated particulates and the volatilization rate of freshly exposed organic chemicals. Industrial or household use of contaminated groundwater also can result in volatilization and aerosol transport.

Food Chain--Sampling and analysis of fish from the river and small animals that frequent the site area indicate the presence of contaminants in tissues. Therefore, these biota are potentially important food-chain pathway elements and may serve as transport mechanisms for site contaminants. Consumable plants or produce from residential gardens also are potential food-chain elements. However, reference documents do not include information about residential gardens.

C. HUMAN EXPOSURE PATHWAYS

Human exposure to contaminants associated with the site potentially occurs through all the environmental media and the food chain. Potential human exposures and exposure routes that may pose a concern for human health are identified and summarized in Table 3 of the Appendix.


PUBLIC HEALTH IMPLICATIONS

During the RI, oil residue wastes were detected in test pits that were dug in the former oil pond area. Chemical analyses of material from the test pits identified high concentrations of aromatic hydrocarbons, such as xylenes, toluene, and ethyl benzene, as well as PAH's, PCB's, and bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (BEHP). Following termination of oil processing operations, the oil ponds were filled with municipal refuse and subsequently covered with sand. Therefore, no current human exposure to the oil sludge residues in the former oil ponds is occurring.

Waste oil seeps along the southern face of the landfill have discharged contaminants from the former oil ponds and landfill to the surface. In 1983, soil berms were constructed to contain this landfill seepage. Additional remedial work by EPA has included construction of interceptor trenches and dams to control the flow of water and oil from the seepage area. There is also an oil collection pond where oil seepage is trapped prior to removal and off-site disposal.

The landfill, the seepage area, the wetlands, and the Clinton-Kalamazoo Canal have been fenced to prevent public access. Therefore, only remedial workers and other authorized personnel have access to on-site contaminated areas.

Analyses of leachate samples revealed the presence of high concentrations of PCB's, PAH's, and BEHP. High concentrations of volatile aromatic hydrocarbons were also detected in leachate samples. Lower concentrations of these chemicals were detected in surface water and sediment samples from the ponds and canal south of the oil collection area.

Contact with PCB's in occupational exposures usually occurs by dermal and inhalation exposure. The most commonly reported symptom of PCB-exposed workers is chloracne, a persistent acne-like skin condition. In some studies, elevations in serum levels of liver enzymes (e.g., gamma-glutamyl transpeptidase) have also been reported. In animal studies, PCB's have been reported to be a carcinogenic promoter for liver tumors. Other animal studies have attributed adverse reproductive effects to PCB's.

Although oral ingestion of leachate is very unlikely, inadequately protected remedial workers could absorb PCB's through dermal contact with contaminated wastes or soils. Considerable uncertainty exists in estimating the amount of soil-skin contact by on-site workers. Furthermore, PCB's are strongly absorbed by soil, and this attraction reduces their bioavailability. Because of these uncertainties, it is not possible to accurately quantitate the health risks resulting from exposure to PCB-contaminated soil. However, repeated exposure to on-site contamination could result in bioaccumulation of PCB's that might lead to adverse health effects. Contact with oil seepage and leachat sediment is a matter of particular concern, since these media may contain high concentrations of PCB's.

On-site wastes and soils also contained high concentrations of PAH's. Exposure to PAH's is of potential concern because some PAH's and PAH mixtures are carcinogenic. In laboratory experiments, PAH's are potent inducers of skin cancer when applied dermally to mice and rats. PAH's are also carcinogenic in animals when ingested, injected, or instilled intratracheally.

Studies of human exposure to PAH's have been conducted among coke plant workers and coal gas production workers. Epidemiologic studies of these workers have revealed an association between occupational exposure to combustion products containing PAH's and cancer of the lung, pancreas, kidney, bladder, and skin. Interpretation of these studies is confounded, however, by simultaneous exposure to other combustion products and by additional exposure to chemical carcinogens in cigarette smoke.

Dermal contact with PAH's is a matter of concern because PAH's can be absorbed by intact human skin and activated to chemically reactive intermediates that may be involved in carcinogenesis. Some PAH's, such as anthracene, acridine, or phenanthrene, can also produce phototoxic skin reactions. Dermal exposure to these compounds, followed by exposure to sunlight, can produce skin erythema, urticaria, and burning and itching. These phototoxic effects usually disappear when the irritant or sensitizer is eliminated.

BEHP was also detected in leachate and other surface media. BHEP is readily absorbed through the gastrointestinal tract, and it may be absorbed to a limited extent through the skin. Oral ingestion of large doses of BEHP by laboratory animals has produced liver toxicity, developmental toxicity, reproductive toxicity, and carcinogenicity. The proliferation of hepatic peroxisomes in human patients who undergo chronic hemodialysis for kidney disease has been attributed to exposure to BEHP that has leached from the dialysis equipment.

As discussed above for PCB's, the quantity of PAH's, BEHP, and volatile aromatic compounds absorbed through the skin cannot be estimated accurately. Human exposure to contaminants in leachate, water, and sediment could also occur by ingestion or inhalation. Significant exposures of this type are not likely, however, because the site is fenced, and access to areas of highly-contaminated seepage is restricted to on-site remedial workers with Level C protective gear.

Elevated concentrations of arsenic were detected in samples of sediment and surface water from some locations in the Clinton-Kalamazoo Canal and along surface water migration routes. Chronic ingestion of contaminated sediment or surface water could be a cause for health concern because of the potential carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic toxicity of arsenic. However, security fences prevent public access to contaminated areas. Therefore, no public health threat is expected.

Some fish collecte from the Clinton River in 1983 contained elevated concentrations of PCB's. A PCB concentration of 252 ppm was detected in one carp that had a very high lipid content (46 percent). The next highest PCB concentration of 7 ppm was also detected in a carp (7 percent lipid). Since PCB's are highly lipophilic, their concentration in fish tissues would tend to increase as the lipid concentration increases. No PCB concentrations in excess of the FDA Tolerance Level of 2 ppm were detected in any of the other species of fish tested (northern pike, white sucker, walleye, or common shiner) or in crayfish.

Additional sampling and analysis of fish from the Clinton River in 1984 detected PCB concentrations (maximum 5 ppm) in excess of the FDA Tolerance Level in some carp but not in other fish species. Therefore, carp from the Clinton River should not be consumed, since they may contain PCB's in excess of the FDA Tolerance Level. Based on the monitoring data provided, the occasional consumption of other species of fish would not be expected to result in adverse health effects.

Elevated concentrations of PCB's, DDT, and BEHP were also detected in whole tissue samples from racoons and opossums captured along the Clinton River near the site. It is not known if these animals or other biota in the area are consumed by humans. Nevertheless, the consumption of biota from this area could pose a health threat because of the presence of elevated concentrations of PCB's, DDT and metabolites, BEHP, and other contaminants.

Several VOC's (i.e., trichloroethylene, 1,1-dichloroethane, cis and trans-1,2-dichloroethylene) were detected in water samples from private wells at the small businesses located west of Ryan Road. It has not been determined whether the contamination of groundwater in these wells resulted from solvent disposal on the business properties or from the migration of contaminants in groundwater from the landfill area.

Trichloroethylene (TCE) was detected in water from private business wells at concentrations as high as 40 ppb. This concentration exceeds the EPA Maximum Contaminant Level of 5 ppb for TCE in drinking water. However, bottled water is reportedly provided to the employees for potable use. No information was available on non-potable use of the groundwater in the businesses. The use of VOC-contaminated water in a building could, however, result in inhalation exposure to VOC's released to indoor air. Sampling of indoor air would be necessary to determine whether this exposure pathway poses a potential health risk.

Several private residential wells were also tested for possible contamination. None of the water samples from private wells contained VOC concentrations that would pose a health concern with the possible exception of methylene chloride. The reported presence of methylene chloride in water samples from private wells may be a laboratory artifact because 1) no other VOC's were detected in these samples and 2) methylene chloride was not detected in the business wells located between the site and the private wells. However, if methylene chloridecontamination is present, the affected private wells would not be acceptable for use as a source of potable water.


CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

A. CONCLUSIONS

This site is of potential public health concern because of the risk to human health resulting from possible exposure to hazardous substances at concentrations that may result in adverse health effects. As noted in Human Exposure Pathways Section, human exposure to contaminants may be occurring via several media. The principal contaminants were VOC's, PCB's, and PAH's.

Persons in the adjacent recreation area and nearby residences and businesses are possibly exposed via ingestion or dermal contact with soil contaminants that may have been transported to those locations by air and surface water runoff. However, reference documents do not provide data to indicate whether contaminants are present there at levels that may pose a health concern.

Remedial workers, if not adequately protected, could be exposed via dermal contact, inhalation, and ingestion to contaminants at levels that may be of health concern.

Hunters and fishermen at the Clinton River may be exposed to site-related chemicals by the ingestion of contaminated game and fish.

Employees at businesses on Ryan Road are possibly exposed via inhalation of groundwater contaminants that volatilize during industrial water use.

None of the residential water supply wells contained VOC concentrations that would pose a health concern with the possible exception of methylene chloride. However, the reported presence of methylene chloride may be a laboratory artifact. If the methylene chloride contamination is genuine, or if higher concentrations of other VOC's have migrated to residential well locations since reference monitoring data were obtained, the affected groundwater would not be acceptable for use as a potable water supply.

B. RECOMMENDATIONS

  1. In accordance with CERCLA as amended, the G&H Landfill NPL Site, Macomb County, MI has been evaluated for appropriate follow-up with respect to health effects studies. Inasmuch as there is no extant documentation or indication in the information and data reviewed for this Health Assessment that human exposure to contaminants at levels of public health concern is currently occurring or has occurred, this site is not being considered for follow-up health studies at this time. However, if data become available suggesting that human exposure to significant levels of hazardous substances is currently occurring or has occurred in the past, ATSDR will re-evaluate this site for any indicated follow-up.

  2. Require remedial workers to adhere to applicable regulations and recommendations outlined by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health to ensure that workers are not exposed to unacceptable levels of site contaminants.

  3. Periodically monitor groundwater in private wells east of Ryan Road for site-related contamination. If contamination is detected at concentrations that pose a health concern, the owner should be advised to obtain an alternative water-supply source.

  4. Monitor for the possible migration of methane and other gases from the landfill into buildings and residences surrounding the site to determine whether gasses have accumulated at concentrations that pose a health concern or may cause physical injury (methane explosion).

  5. Carp from the Clinton River should not be consumed because PCB concentrations in excess of the FDA Tolerance Level were detected in some of the fish that were tested. Game animals from the site vicinity should not be consumed because high concentrations of PCB's, DDT, and other chemical contaminants were detected in some of the animals tested.

  6. Analyze surface soils at nearby businesses and residences for site-related contaminants to determine whether off-site surface soils have been impacted by the migration of contaminants from the site. Additional sampling of soil and sediment from drainage pathways south of the site and in the recreational area is also needed to assess potential public health risks.

PREPARERS OF REPORT

Environmental Reviewer:

Don Gibeaut
Environmental Health Engineer
Environmental Engineering Branch

Health Effects Reviewer:

Kenneth G. Orloff, Ph.D.
Senior Toxicologist
Health Sciences Branch

Typist:

Charlotta V. Gavin
Clerk Typist
Environmental Engineering Branch

Regional Representative:

Denise Jordan-Izaguirre
Public Health Advisor
Region V
Field Operations Branch


REFERENCES

  1. CH2M Hill, 1987, Remedial Investigation Technical Report, G&H Landfill.

  2. ATSDR files.

APPENDICES

TABLE 1. ON-SITE CONTAMINANTS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN

CONSTITUENT

WASTES
(TEST PIT DATA)

SHALLOW SOILS h
(DEPTH 0-1 FT.)

SURFACE SOILS AND SEDIMENT
WHERE LEACHATE DISCHARGES


Methylene Chloride

730j - 160,000

ND - 140

ND

Vinyl Chloride

ND

ND

ND

Ethylbenzene

ND - 540,000

ND - 1j

ND - 9,200

Total Xylene

ND - 1,450,000

ND - 8

ND

1,2-Dichloroethene

ND - 120,000

ND - 2j

ND

Chlorobenzene

ND - 2,200

ND

ND - 1,400

Toluene

ND - 816,864

6 - 10

ND - 64,000

Trichloroethene

ND - 4,386

ND

ND

Benzene

ND - 22,556

ND

ND - 600

Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate

ND - 840,000

38j - 320j

ND - 5.5E+6

PAH (Low Molecular Wt.)

ND - 370,900

ND - 35,660

ND - 2.2E+5

PAH (High Molecular Wt.)

ND - 349,200

ND - 38,600

ND

PCB

ND - 134,700

ND - 1,700

ND

Arsenic

ND - 80,800

ND - 9,800

4,000 - 12,000

Chromium

ND - 638,000

6 - 2.1E+4

5.1E+3 - 37E+3

Cadmium

ND - 70,000

ND

100 - 1E+5

Lead

ND - 15 E6

ND - 76,000

5.7E+3 - 16E+3

Mercury

ND - 35,000

ND - 1,900

ND


 

CANAL AND PONDS

CONSTITUENT

SURFACE WATER

SEDIMENT

Methylene Chloride

ND - 110

ND - 250

Vinyl Chloride

ND - 7

ND

Ethylbenzene

ND - 350

ND - 60

Total Xylene

ND - 2,500

ND - 330

1,2-Dichloroethene

ND

ND

Chlorobenzene

ND

ND

Toluene

ND - 2,200

ND

Trichloroethene

ND - 200

ND

Benzene

ND - 780

ND

Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate

ND - 32

ND - 56,000

PAH (Low Molecular Wt.)

ND - 60

ND

PAH (High Molecular Wt.)

ND

ND

PCB

ND - 6.8

ND - 21,000

Arsenic

ND - 290

26,200 - 525,000

Chromium

ND - 32

12,500j - 4,100

Cadmium

ND

220j - 2,630

Lead

ND - 46

4,700j - 138,000

Mercury

ND - 1.9

ND - 1,940


CONSTITUENT

GROUNDWATER
(MONITORING WELLS)

Methylene Chloride

ND - 780

Vinyl Chloride

ND - 91

Ethylbenzene

ND - 24,000,000

Total Xylene

ND - 6,600,000

1,2-Dichloroethene

ND - 500

Chlorobenzene

ND - 100

Toluene

ND - 1,400

Trichloroethene

ND

Benzene

ND - 1,100

Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate

ND - 680,000

PAH (Low Molecular Wt.)

ND - 1,800,000 k

PAH (High Molecular Wt.)

ND

PCB

ND - 39

Arsenic

ND - 280

Chromium

ND - 5

Cadmium

ND - 11

Lead

ND - 53

Mercury

ND - 0.5


Sampling conducted 1983 to 1986
Values in parts per billion, unless otherwise noted
ND - Not detected
NR - No data
h - Essentially all available surface soil data are from locations which are within the capped landfill area. Therefore, data may represent principally the quality of the cap material.
j - Estimated value
k - Constituents of oil floating at groundwater table
PAH - Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon (total)
PCB - Polychlorinated biphenyl (total)


TABLE 2. OFF-SITE CONTAMINANTS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN

 

GROUNDWATER

CONSTITUENT

MONITORING WELLS

BUSINESS, PRIVATE
WATER WELLS

Methylene Chloride

ND - 28

ND - 123

Vinyl Chloride

ND

ND - 32

Ethylbenzene

ND

ND

Total Xylene

ND

ND - 1

1,1-Dichloroethene

ND

ND - 4

1,2-Dichloroethene

ND - 15

ND - 25

Chlorobenzene

ND

ND

Toluene

ND - 11

ND - 3

Trichloroethene

ND

ND - 40

Benzene

ND - 19

ND

Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate

ND - 480

NR

PAH (Low Molecular Wt.)

ND

NR

PAH (High Molecular Wt.)

ND

NR

PCB

ND

NR

Arsenic

ND

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) q

CONSTITUENT

SURFACE WATER

SEDIMENT

Methylene Chloride

ND - 21

3j - 51

Vinyl Chloride

ND

ND

Ethylbenzene

ND

ND

Total Xylene

ND

ND

1,2-Dichloroethene

ND

ND

Chlorobenzene

ND

ND

Toluene

ND

ND

Trichloroethene

ND

ND

Benzene

ND

ND

Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate

ND - 22

ND

PAH (Low Molecular Wt.)

ND

ND

PAH (High Molecular Wt.)

ND

ND

PCB

ND

ND

Arsenic

ND

ND

Chromium

ND

6.3 - 13

Cadmium

ND

ND

Lead

ND - 19

6.2j - 17

Mercury

ND - 5.5j

ND


 

CLINTON RIVER

CONSTITUENT

SURFACE WATER

SEDIMENT

Methylene Chloride

ND

ND - 10

Vinyl Chloride

ND

ND

Ethylbenzene

ND

ND

Total Xylene

ND - 8

ND - 3

1,2-Dichloroethene

ND

ND

Chlorobenzene

ND

ND

Toluene

ND

ND

Trichloroethene

ND

ND

Benzene

ND

ND

Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate

7 - 132

ND - 3,054 p

PAH (Low Molecular Wt.)

ND

ND - 5,559 p

PAH (High Molecular Wt.)

ND

ND - 10,742 p

PCB

ND

ND

Arsenic

ND

ND - 4,500

Chromium

ND - 116

4,000 - 35,000

Cadmium

ND

ND - 370

Lead

ND - 8.2

1,300 - 55,000

Mercury

ND

ND


CONSTITUENT

FISH

PCB

>0.1 - 252 (parts per million)


Values in parts per billion, unless otherwise noted
ND - Not detected
NR - No data
PAH - Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon (total)
PCB - Polychlorinated biphenyl (total)
j - Estimated value
p - Data are qualitative
q - Ponds are topographically and hydrogeologically upgradient from site


TABLE 3. POTENTIAL HUMAN EXPOSURE PATHWAYS

MEDIA

POTENTIAL EXPOSURE POINTS

POTENTIAL EXPOSURE ROUTES [Y/N]E

SOIL ON-SITE
* Site enclosed by security fence; hence, access by intruders (i.e., other than authorized persons) is unlikely. Therefore, intruder exposure is unlikely.

N * Not a likely human exposure pathway, no likely exposure routes.
* Remedial workers possibly exposed, if unprotected. Y * Ingestion, dermal contact.
OFF-SITE
* Persons in adjacent recreation area, nearest residences, and businesses possibly exposed to contaminants that may have been transported to those locations.

Y * Ingestion, dermal contact.
GROUND WATER ON-SITE
* No domestic wells, hence no exposure points.

N * No current exposure routes; and future site development not anticipated, so future well installation and exposure routes unlikely.
*Residents of Detroit area who use water from the distribution lines that cross the site possibly could become exposed if on-site contaminants enter pipe. However, such exposure is remote. Pipes are installed in natural ground, not in waste. Also, water pressure within pipes should prevent contaminant infiltration into pipe. Large dilution of contaminants within the pipe lessens chances of significant exposure. N * Not a likely environmental pathway, no likely exposure routes.
OFF-SITE
* Persons at adjacent businesses use bottled water for potable water supply, but possibly are exposed to groundwater contaminants through other uses of water from their water supply wells

Y * Inhalation, dermal contact, and possibly ingestion.
Persons at many residences near the site use groundwater for their water supply amd possibly are exposed through potable and household water uses. A public water distribution system is in place for residential and businesses connections. Y * Ingestion, inhalation, dermal contact.
SURFACE WATER, SEDIMENT ON-SITE
* Site is enclosed by security fence and some ponds are also fenced. Hence, site access by intruders is unlikely. Therefore, exposure to contaminants in surface water catchments and leachate seepage points is unlikely.

Y * Not a likely human exposure pathway, no likely exposure routes.
* Remedial workers, if unprotected, possibly are exposed. Dermal contact.
OFF-SITE
* Residents around two ponds immediately north of 23 Mile Road are possibly exposed through recreational uses of ponds.

Y * Ingestion, inhalation, dermal contact.
* Fishermen and other recreational users of Clinton River possibly are exposed. Y * Ingestion, inhalation, dermal.
* Persons withdrawing surface water downstream of site. (There are no known users) N * Not a likely human exposure pathway, no likely exposure routes.
AIR ON-SITE
* Site enclosed by fence; hence, intruder access is unlikely. Therefore, exposure to airborne contaminants on-site is unlikely.

N * Not a likely human exposure pathway, no likely exposure routes.
* Remedial workers, if unprotected, possibly exposed. Y * Inhalation, dermal contact.
OFF-SITE
* Persons at nearby businesses and residences possibly exposed to contaminated particulates or volatilized compounds.

Y * Inhalation (dermal contact probably not important)
* Persons in recreation area possibly exposed to contaminated particulates. N * Although inhalation possibly occurs intermittently, exposure duration/frequency to transients probably too limited to be of concern.
*Persons in nearby businesses or residences possibly exposed to methane and other gasses transported through subsurface soils to buildings. Y * Physical injury (methane), inhalation, (other gasses).
FOOD CHAIN ON-SITE
* Site is enclosed by security fence; hence, no likely exposure.

N * Not a likely human exposure pathway, no likely exposure routes.
OFF-SITE
* Fishermen, hunters, trappers possibly exposed through contaminated fish or game.

Y * Ingestion.
* Residents with gardens possibly are exposed through produce raised in contaminated soil or irrigated with contaminated groundwater. Y * Ingestion.

NoteE:

Y = Route is potentially a concern
N = Route not a concern



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. #