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

PUBLIC HEALTH ASSESSMENT

LOWER ECORSE CREEK DUMP
WYANDOTTE, WAYNE COUNTY, MICHIGAN

APPENDIX A.

FIGURES

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1
Figure 1. Location of Lower Ecorse River Dump Site

Figure 2
Figure 2. Site Location

Figure 3
Figure 3. Site Features

APPENDIX B.

TABLES

LIST OF TABLES

  1. Concentrations of contaminants of concern in samples of surface soil from the Lower Ecorse Creek Dump site.
  2. Concentrations of contaminants of concern in samples of subsurface soil from the Lower Ecorse Creek Dump site.
  3. Concentrations of cyanide in samples of groundwater and sump water from the Lower Ecorse Creek Dump site (1989-1994).
  4. Concentrations of contaminants of concern in water collected from a basement on the Lower Ecorse Creek Dump site.
  5. Concentrations of contaminants of concern in sediment collected from a basement on the Lower Ecorse Creek Dump site.
  6. Concentrations of contaminants of concern in samples of subsurface soil collected near the Lower Ecorse Creek Dump site.
  7. Concentrations of contaminants of concern in water collected from a basements near the Lower Ecorse Creek Dump site.
  8. Concentrations of contaminants of concern in sediment collected from basements near the Lower Ecorse Creek Dump site.
  9. Concentrations of contaminants of concern in groundwater collected from temporary wells near the Lower Ecorse Creek Dump site.
  10. Concentrations of contaminants of concern in water collected from the Lower Ecorse River near the Lower Ecorse Creek Dump site.
  11. Concentrations of contaminants of concern in sediment collected from the Lower Ecorse River near the Lower Ecorse Creek Dump site, December 1994.
  12. Fish collected by MDNR and the OMOE from the Detroit River downstream of the confluence of the Ecorse River, 1980-1992
  13. Contaminants in fish from the Detroit River downstream of the confluence of the Ecorse River, Ontario and Michigan data, 1981-1992
  14. Contaminants in fish collected from the Detroit River at Fighting Island, Ontario data, 1981-1986
  15. Summary of results for total, WAD, and bioavailable cyanide in soil samples from the Lower Ecorse Creek Dump site
  16. Cyanide exposure dose evaluation, Lower Ecorse Creek Dump Site.
Table 1. Concentrations of contaminants of concern in samples of surface soil from the Lower Ecorse Creek Dump site.
Chemical Date Maximum Concentration
(ppm)
Reference Comparison Value
(ppm)
arsenic 1/94 17.2 9 0.6E, 0.4C
barium 1/94 238 9 100R
benzo(a)anthracene 1/94 2.6 9 carcinogen
benzo(a)pyrene 1/94 2.4 9 0.1C
benzo(b)fluoranthene 1/94 3.7 9 carcinogen
cadmium 1/94 2.4 9 1E, carcinogen
chromium 1/94 612 9 2,000R (III)
carcinogen (VI)
chrysene 1/94 2.7 9 carcinogen
copper 1/94 1,510 9 NA
cyanide (total) 10/89 5,800 9 40R
12/92 1,920 9
1/94 2,240 9
(WAD) 12/92 288 9
1/94 401 9
fluoranthene 1/94 5.4 9 80R
lead 1/94 316 9 carcinogen
mercury 1/94 1.4 9 NA
phenanthrene 1/94 5.1 9 NA
pyrene 1/94 5.8 9 60R
zinc 1/94 5,650 9 600R
Chemicals not detected are not listed.

Bolded chemicals exceed comparison values.

WAD –    Weak Acid Dissociated cyanide

NA –    None Available
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 U.S. EPA Reference Dose, assuming child ingestion, pica behavior
    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 2. Concentrations of contaminants of concern in samples of subsurface soil from the Lower Ecorse Creek Dump site.
Chemical Date Maximum Concentration
(ppm)
Reference Comparison Value
(ppm)
arsenic 1/94 27.3 9 0.6E, 0.4C
11/94 6.1 4
barium 1/94 776 9 100R
11/94 65.7 4
benzo(a)anthracene 1/94 60 9 carcinogen
11/94 0.16J 4
benzo(a)pyrene 1/94 52 9 0.1C
11/94 0.16J 4
benzo(b)fluoranthene 1/94 72 9 carcinogen
11/94 0.37J(7) 4
cadmium 1/94 9.9 9 1E, carcinogen
11/94 0.48J 4
chromium 1/94 1,610 9 2,000R (III)
carcinogen (VI)
11/94 16.8J 4
chrysene 1/94 84 9 carcinogen
11/94 0.15J 4
copper 1/94 455 9 NA
11/94 16.9 4
cyanide (total) 10/89 31.6 9 40R
4/90 408 9
5/91 2,460 9
10/91 190 9
6/92 13,440 9
4/93 990 9
1/94 32,300 9
11/94 2.1 4
(WAD) 6/92 1,262 9
4/93 840 9
1/94 679 9
fluoranthene 1/94 150 9 80R
11/94 0.29J 4
lead 1/94 8,310 9 carcinogen
11/94 52.J 4
mercury 1/94 8.8 9 NA
11/94 ND (0.11) 4
2-methylnaphthalene 1/94 9.6 9 NA
11/94 ND (0.38) 4
naphthalene 1/94 14 9 NA
11/94 ND (0.38) 4
phenanthrene 1/94 94 9 NA
11/94 0.12J 4
pyrene 1/94 120 9 60R
11/94 0.3J 4
selenium 1/94 5.8 9 4E
11/94 0.41J 4
silver 1/94 12.7 9 10R
11/94 0.13J 4
zinc 1/94 1,090 9 600R
11/94 111.J 4
Chemicals not detected are not listed.

Bolded chemicals exceed comparison values.

WAD –    Weak Acid Dissociated cyanide

ND –    Not Detected (with detection limit)

J –    Estimated Value. Chemical detected at level below Contract Required Detection Level.

NA –    None Available
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 U.S. EPA Reference Dose, assuming child ingestion, pica behavior

    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 3. Concentrations of cyanide in samples of groundwater and sump water from the Lower Ecorse Creek Dump site (1989-1994).
Date Sample Type Maximum Concentration
(ppb)
Reference
10/89 sump water 2,400 9
4/90 groundwater 229,500 9
5/91 sump water 5,000 9
6/91 sump water 700 9
10/91 sump water 1,000 9
6/92 sump water 1,200. (total) 9
400. (WAD) 9
1/93 sump water 12,000. (total) 9
1,400. (WAD) 9
4/93 sump water 10,000. (total) 9
1,100. (WAD) 9
water 72,000. (total) 9
25,000. (WAD) 9
12/94 basement water 5,150. (total) 4

WAD –    Weak Acid Dissociable cyanide

Comparison Value:    200 ppb (RMEG)

Table 4. Concentrations of contaminants of concern in water collected from a basement on the Lower Ecorse Creek Dump site.
Chemical Date Maximum Concentration
(ppb)
Reference Comparison Value
(ppb)
arsenic 12/94 1.8J 4 3E, 0.02C
barium 12/94 63.4 4 700R
cobalt 12/94 1.7J 4 NA
copper 12/94 7.4J 4 1,300MCLG
cyanide (total) 12/94 5,150 4 200R
lead 12/94 2.9J 4 15PL, carcinogen
manganese 12/94 51.3 4 50R
vanadium 12/94 0.98J 4 30iE
Chemicals not detected are not listed.

Bolded chemicals exceed comparison values.

J – Estimated Value. Chemical detected at level below Contract Required Detection Level.

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

Comparison Value Bases

    E –    ATSDR Environmental Media Evaluation Guides (EMEGs)
    iE –    ATSDR Environmental Media Evaluation Guides (EMEGs), intermediate exposure duration
    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)
    A –    U.S. EPA Drinking Water Lifetime Health Advisory
    MCLG–    U.S. EPA Safe Drinking Water Act Maximum Contaminant Level Goal
    PL –    U.S. EPA Proposed Action Level for Lead in Drinking Water
Table 5. Concentrations of contaminants of concern in sediment collected from a basement on the Lower Ecorse Creek Dump site.
Chemical Date Maximum Concentration
(ppm)
Reference Comparison Value
(ppm)
antimony 12/94 6.5J 4 0.8R
arsenic 12/94 5.5J 4 0.6E, 0.4C
barium 12/94 177 4 100R
beryllium 12/94 0.26J 4 10R, 0.2C
cadmium 12/94 5.8J 4 1E, carcinogen
chromium 12/94 68.1J 4 2,000R (III)
carcinogen (VI)
cobalt 12/94 6.J 4 NA
copper 12/94 1,180.J 4 NA
cyanide (total) 12/94 0.74J 4 40R
lead 12/94 1,570.J 4 carcinogen
manganese 12/94 1,220.J 4 300R
mercury 12/94 1.1 4 NA
nickel 12/94 243.J 4 carcinogen
silver 12/94 1.1J 4 10R
vanadium 12/94 11.5 4 6iE
zinc 12/94 1,210.J 4 600R
Chemicals not detected are not listed.

Bolded chemicals exceed comparison values.

J –    Estimated Value. Chemical detected at level below Contract Required Detection Level.

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

Comparison Value Bases

    E –    ATSDR Environmental Media Evaluation Guides (EMEGs)
    iE –    ATSDR Environmental Media Evaluation Guides (EMEGs), intermediate exposure duration
    R –    ATSDR Reference Dose Media Evaluation Guides (RMEGs), calculated from U.S. EPA Reference Dose, assuming child ingestion, pica behavior
    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 6. Concentrations of contaminants of concern in samples of subsurface soil collected near the Lower Ecorse Creek Dump site.
Chemical Date Maximum Concentration
(ppm)
Reference Comparison Value
(ppm)
acenaphthylene 11/94 0.55J 4 NA
antimony 11/94 2.7J 4 0.8R
arsenic 11/94 30.6 4 0.6E, 0.4C
barium 11/94 717 4 100R
benzo(a)anthracene 11/94 13 4 carcinogen
benzo(a)pyrene 11/94 9.2 4 0.1C
benzo(b)fluoranthene 11/94 8.8 4 carcinogen
15.(8)
benzo(g,h,i)perylene 11/94 2.5 4 NA
benzo(k)fluoranthene 11/94 3.9 4 carcinogen
15.(8)
beryllium 11/94 0.97 4 10R, 0.2C
bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 11/94 4.8J 4 40R, 50C
cadmium 11/94 6.9 4 1E, carcinogen
chromium 11/94 684.J 4 2,000R (III)
carcinogen (VI)
chrysene 11/94 13 4 carcinogen
cobalt 11/94 14.6 4 NA
copper 11/94 583 4 NA
cyanide (total) 11/94 4 4 40R
dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 11/94 0.9J 4 carcinogen
fluoranthene 11/94 10 4 80R
indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 11/94 3 4 carcinogen
lead 11/94 737.J 4 carcinogen
manganese 11/94 15,000.J 4 300R
mercury 11/94 0.88 4 NA
2-methylnaphthalene 11/94 0.68J 4 NA
naphthalene 11/94 0.84 4 NA
nickel 11/94 80.4 4 carcinogen
phenanthrene 11/94 7.8 4 NA
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) 11/94 0.25J 4 0.04E, 0.09C
pyrene 11/94 23 4 60R
selenium 11/94 4.1J 4 4E
silver 11/94 2.5 4 10R
thallium 11/94 1.4J 4 NA
vanadium 11/94 136 4 6iE
zinc 11/94 908 4 600R
Chemicals not detected are not listed.

Bolded chemicals exceed comparison values.

J –    Estimated Value. Chemical detected at level below Contract Required Detection Level.

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

Comparison Value Bases

    E –    ATSDR Environmental Media Evaluation Guides (EMEGs)
    iE –    ATSDR Environmental Media Evaluation Guides (EMEGs), intermediate exposure duration
    R –    ATSDR Reference Dose Media Evaluation Guides (RMEGs), calculated from U.S. EPA Reference Dose, assuming child ingestion, pica behavior
    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 7. Concentrations of contaminants of concern in water collected from a basements near the Lower Ecorse Creek Dump site.
Chemical Date Maximum Concentration
(ppb)
Reference Comparison Value
(ppb)
arsenic 12/94 19.6 4 3E, 0.02C
barium 12/94 53.3J 4 700R
beryllium 12/94 0.1J 4 50R, 0.008C
bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 12/94 140.J 4 200R, 3C
butyl benzyl phthalate 12/94 15.J 4 2,000R, carcinogen
cadmium 12/94 11.3 4 7E, carcinogen
chromium 12/94 36.1 4 10,000R (III)
50R, carcinogen (VI)
cobalt 12/94 11.6J 4 NA
copper 12/94 5,740 4 1,300MCLG
cyanide (total) 12/94 14.4 4 200R
di-n-octyl phthalate 12/94 78.J 4 NA
lead 12/94 125 4 15PL, carcinogen
manganese 12/94 632 4 50R
mercury
4-methylphenol
12/94 141
13
4 2A
carcinogen
nickel 12/94 906 4 100A, carcinogen
phenanthrene 12/94 17.J 4 NA
selenium 12/94 14.1 4 20E
silver 12/94 2.4J 4 50R
vanadium 12/94 16.4J 4 30iE
zinc 12/94 26,500.J 4 3,000R
Chemicals not detected are not listed.

Bolded chemicals exceed comparison values.

J –    Estimated Value. Chemical detected at level below Contract Required Detection Level.

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

Comparison Value Bases

    E –    ATSDR Environmental Media Evaluation Guides (EMEGs)
    iE –    ATSDR Environmental Media Evaluation Guides (EMEGs), intermediate exposure duration
    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)
    A –    U.S. EPA Drinking Water Lifetime Health Advisory
    MCLG–    U.S. EPA Safe Drinking Water Act Maximum Contaminant Level Goal
    PL –    U.S. EPA Proposed Action Level for Lead in Drinking Water
Table 8. Concentrations of contaminants of concern in sediment collected from basements near the Lower Ecorse Creek Dump site.
Chemical Date Maximum Concentration
(ppm)
Reference Comparison Value
(ppm)
antimony 12/94 0.68J 4 0.8R
arsenic 12/94 6.7J 4 0.6E, 0.4C
barium 12/94 111 4 100R
beryllium 12/94 0.61J 4 10R, 0.2C
cadmium 12/94 1.4 4 1E, carcinogen
chromium 12/94 24.2J 4 2,000R (III)
carcinogen (VI)
cobalt 12/94 9.5 4 NA
copper 12/94 297 4 NA
cyanide (total) 12/94 0.61J 4 40R
lead 12/94 255.J 4 carcinogen
manganese 12/94 1,420.J 4 300R
mercury 12/94 0.19 4 NA
nickel 12/94 26.2J 4 carcinogen
selenium 12/94 1.1J 4 4E
silver 12/94 0.67J 4 10R
vanadium 12/94 25.1 4 6iE
zinc 12/94 717.J 4 600R

Chemicals not detected are not listed.

Bolded chemicals exceed comparison values.

J –    Estimated Value. Chemical detected at level below Contract Required Detection Level.

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

Comparison Value Bases

    E –    ATSDR Environmental Media Evaluation Guides (EMEGs)
    iE –    ATSDR Environmental Media Evaluation Guides (EMEGs), intermediate exposure duration
    R –    ATSDR Reference Dose Media Evaluation Guides (RMEGs), calculated from U.S. EPA Reference Dose, assuming child ingestion, pica behavior
    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 9. Concentrations of contaminants of concern in groundwater collected from temporary wells near the Lower Ecorse Creek Dump site.
Chemical Date Maximum Concentration
(ppb)
Reference Comparison Value
(ppb)
arsenic 11/94 5.6J 4 3E, 0.02C
barium 12/94 265 4 700R
cobalt 12/94 1.6J 4 NA
copper 12/94 0.87J 4 1,300MCLG
cyanide (total) 12/94 31.4 4 200R
manganese 12/94 1,420 4 50R
nickel 12/94 4.2J 4 100A, carcinogen
selenium 12/94 14.1 4 20E
thallium 12/94 11.9J 4 0.4A
vanadium 12/94 2.5J 4 30iE
zinc 12/94 2.4J 4 3,000R

Chemicals not detected are not listed.

Bolded chemicals exceed comparison values.

J –    Estimated Value. Chemical detected at level below Contract Required Detection Level.

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

Comparison Value Bases

    E –    ATSDR Environmental Media Evaluation Guides (EMEGs)
    iE –    ATSDR Environmental Media Evaluation Guides (EMEGs), intermediate exposure duration
    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)
    A –    U.S. EPA Drinking Water Lifetime Health Advisory
    MCLG–    U.S. EPA Safe Drinking Water Act Maximum Contaminant Level Goal
    PL –    U.S. EPA Proposed Action Level for Lead in Drinking Water
Table 10. Concentrations of contaminants of concern in water collected from the Lower Ecorse River near the Lower Ecorse Creek Dump site.
Chemical Date Maximum Concentration
(ppb)
Reference Comparison Value
(ppb)
Upstream At Site Downstream
S. Br. N. Br.
arsenic 12/94 3.0J 2.5J 2.J 2.J 4 3E, 0.02C
barium 12/94 93.4J 108.J 86.6J 88.4J 4 700R
benzene 12/94 ND (10) ND (10) 2.J ND (10) 4 30R, 1C
beryllium 12/94 ND (0.1) ND (0.1) ND (0.1) 0.11J 4 50R, 0.008C
cadmium 12/94 0.76J 1.7J 0.85J 0.70J 4 7E, carcinogen
chromium 12/94 10.9 19.3 10.4 11.6 4 10,000R (III)
50R, carcinogen (VI)
cobalt 12/94 1.5J 1.6J 0.58J 1.4J 4 NA
copper 12/94 14.9J 27.1 11.7J 14.J 4 1,300MCLG
cyanide (total) 12/94 18.8J 20.8J 22.8J 20.4 4 200R
lead 12/94 22.4 57.8 19.8 23.3 4 15PL, carcinogen
manganese 12/94 178 221 156 154 4 50R
nickel 12/94 ND (6.6) 8.2J ND (5) ND (5.6) 4 100A, carcinogen
vanadium 12/94 7.9J 9.8J 5.J 7.2J 4 30iE
zinc 12/94 ND (86.5) 211.J 106.J 114.J 4 3,000R

Chemicals not detected are not listed.

Bolded chemicals exceed comparison values.

J –    Estimated Value. Chemical detected at level below Contract Required Detection Level.

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

Comparison Value Bases

    E –    ATSDR Environmental Media Evaluation Guides (EMEGs)
    iE –    ATSDR Environmental Media Evaluation Guides (EMEGs), intermediate exposure duration
    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)
    A –    U.S. EPA Drinking Water Lifetime Health Advisory
    MCLG–    U.S. EPA Safe Drinking Water Act Maximum Contaminant Level Goal
    PL –    U.S. EPA Proposed Action Level for Lead in Drinking Water
Table 11. Concentrations of contaminants of concern in sediment collected from the Lower Ecorse River near the Lower Ecorse Creek Dump site, December 1994.
Chemical Maximum Concentration
(ppm)
Comparison Value
(ppm)
Upstream At Site Downstream Seep
S. Br. N. Br.
acenaphthylene ND (1) ND (0.92) ND (1) 0.091J ND (0.42) NA
antimony 0.68J 1.3J 0.74J 0.96J 0.97J 0.8R
arsenic 12.6J 8.9J 11.2J 10.1J 10.6 0.6E, 0.4C
barium 186 217 162 181 202 100R
benzo(a)anthracene 0.71J 0.63J 0.92J 1.2 0.64 carcinogen
benzo(a)pyrene 0.73J 0.64J 0.8J 1.1J 0.6 0.1C
benzo(b)fluoranthene 1.5J 0.49J 1.2J 1.7J 2.1(9) carcinogen
benzo(g,h,i)perylene 0.18J 0.17J 0.25J 0.39J 0.11J NA
benzo(k)fluoranthene 1.J 1.4 2.J 2.J 2.1(9) carcinogen
beryllium 0.93J 0.62J 0.81J 0.89J 0.76J 10R, 0.2C
butyl benzyl phthalate 0.21J 0.14J 0.24J 0.43J 400R, carcinogen
cadmium 2.7J 3.7J 4.6J 4.4J 2.3 1E, carcinogen
carbazole 0.13J 0.12J 0.16J 0.2J NA
chromium 70.9J 120.J 72.7J 79.7J 49.8J 2,000R (III)
carcinogen (VI)
chrysene 1.2 0.86J 1.1 1.6J 0.64 carcinogen
cobalt 11.6J 6.6J 9.6J 10.J 8.3J NA
copper 108.J 107.J 115.J 151 119.J NA
cyanide (total) ND (0.37) 0.49 0.45 0.66 ND (0.62) 40R
dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 0.19J 0.14J 0.2J 0.34J 0.048J carcinogen
di-n-octyl phthalate 0.29J 0.21J 0.54J 0.56J NA
fluoranthene 1.9 1.8 2.3 2.9 1.4 80R
indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 0.38J 0.29J 0.51J 0.73J 0.25J carcinogen
lead 205.J 625.J 230.J 283.J 205.J carcinogen
manganese 676 515 662 616 285.J 300R
mercury 8.9 1.7 0.38 0.6 0.61 NA
nickel 36.6J 26.9J 31.8J 35.3J 29.6 carcinogen
phenanthrene 1 0.76J 0.89J 1.3 0.64J NA
pyrene 2.5 1.6 2.4 3.6J 1 60R
selenium 1.8J 1.7J 2.4J 1.5J 1.3J 4E
silver 1.3J 2.4 1.0J 1.8J 2.9J 10R
vanadium 46.2 29.7 38.1 41.6 41.4 6iE
zinc 582.J 685.J 661.J 665.J 457.J 600R

Reference: 4

Chemicals not detected are not listed.

Bolded chemicals exceed comparison values.

ND –    Not Detected (with detection limit)

– =    Analyses not reported

J –    Estimated Value. Chemical detected at level below Contract Required Detection Level.

NA –    None Available

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

Comparison Value Bases

    E –    ATSDR Environmental Media Evaluation Guides (EMEGs)
    iE –    ATSDR Environmental Media Evaluation Guides (EMEGs), intermediate exposure duration
    R –    ATSDR Reference Dose Media Evaluation Guides (RMEGs), calculated from U.S. EPA Reference Dose, assuming child ingestion, pica behavior
    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 12. Fish collected by MDNR and the OMOE from the Detroit River downstream of the confluence of the Ecorse River, 1980-1992
Date Location Agency Analyses Reported Species (Number, if available)
1981 Mud Island MDNR PCBs Carp
Fighting Island OMOE PCBs, pesticides Rock Bass (20)
White Bass (20)
Walleye (20)
Freshwater Drum (20)
6/19/85 Grassy Island MDNR metals, PCBs Carp (10)
6/3/86 Fighting Island MDNR metals, PCBs Carp (9)
6/3/86 Grassy Island MDNR metals, PCBs Walleye (10)
1986 Fighting Island OMOE mercury, PCBs, pesticides Rock Bass (20)
White Bass (20)
Walleye (19)
Freshwater Drum (9)
Northern Pike (6)
Carp (20)
8/28/90 Grassy Island MDNR mercury, PCBs, pesticides, other organics Carp (10)
Walleye (10)
8/30/90 Trenton Channel MDNR mercury, PCBs, pesticides, other organics Carp (10)
Freshwater Drum (6)
Walleye (14)
1990 Fighting Island OMOE mercury, PCBs, pesticides, dioxins/furans, PAHs Carp (20)
8/17/92 Mud and Grassy Islands MDNR mercury, PCBs, pesticides, other organic chemicals Carp (10)
Walleye (10)
References: 12, 13, 14, 15, 16

Sampling locations shown on Figure 1.

MDNR –    Michigan Department of Natural Resources

OMOE –    Ontario Ministry of the Environment

PCBs –    Polychlorinated biphenyls

PAHs –    Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons

Table 13. Contaminants in fish from the Detroit River downstream of the confluence of the Ecorse River, Ontario and Michigan data, 1981-1992
Chemical Date Sample Type(10) Maximum Concentration
(ppm)
Reference MDPH Level of Concern(11)
(ppm)
Carp Walleye Freshwater Drum
chlordane (total) 1981 NR 0.022 0.022 12 0.3
1985 fillet 0.26 13
1986 NR 0.15 0.004 ND (0.002) 12
1990 fillet 0.037 12
fillet 0.093 0.045 0.036 15
whole 0.158 0.177 15
1992 whole 0.294 0.249 16
copper 1985 fillet 2.2 13 10-100(12)
1986 fillet 1 0.8 14
4,4'-DDD 1981 NR 0.038 0.025 12 5.0(13)
1985 fillet 0.314 13
1986 NR 0.992 0.009 ND (0.002) 12
1990 fillet 0.083 12
fillet 0.171 0.04 0.041 15
whole 0.206 0.076 15
1992 whole 0.237 0.117 16
4,4'-DDE 1981 NR 0.017 0.041 12
1985 fillet 0.80 13
1986 NR 0.521 0.028 0.012 12
1990 fillet 0.722 12
fillet 0.884 0.153 0.059 15
whole 0.814 0.407 15
1992 whole 0.832 0.463 16
4,4'-DDT 1981 NR 0.032 0.012 12
1985 fillet 0.005 13
1986 NR 0.035 0.006 ND (0.002) 12
1990 fillet ND (0.005) 12
fillet 0.036 0.011 0.019 15
whole 0.027 0.025 15
1992 whole 0.017 0.032 16
dieldrin 1985 fillet 0.030 13 0.3
1990 fillet 0.045 0.011 0.01 15
whole 0.048 0.035 15
1992 whole 0.040 0.041 16
dioxins and furans (total)

(2,3,7,8-TCDD equivalents)

1990 fillet 135.1 ppt 12 10 ppt

(2,3,7,8-TCDD equivalents)

1990 fillet 11.71 ppt 12
heptachlor epoxide 1985 fillet 0.022 13 0.3
1990 fillet 0.007 0.004 0.006 15
whole 0.01 0.009 15
1992 whole 0.015 0.016 16
hexachlorobenzene 1981 NR 0.005 0.043 12 0.2-0.5(12)
1985 fillet 0.092 13
1986 NR 0.063 0.005 0.004 12
1990 fillet 0.023 12
fillet 0.019 0.01 0.011 15
whole 0.02 0.023 15
1992 whole 0.013 0.008 16
lead 1985 fillet 1.1 13 0.5-10(12)
1986 fillet 0.115 ND (0.1) 14
mercury 1981 NR 0.39 0.84 12 0.5
1985 fillet 0.4 13
1986 NR 0.17 0.32 1.1 12
fillet 0.45 0.79 14
1990 fillet 0.59 12
fillet 0.18 0.29 0.82 15
whole 0.18 0.32 15
1992 whole 0.16 0.44 16
nickel 1985 fillet 1.9 13 NA
1986 fillet 0.15 0.104 14
octachlorostyrene 1981 NR 0.014 0.028 12 NA
1986 NR 0.076 0.01 0.003 12
1990 fillet 0.053 12
fillet 0.021 0.005 0.005 15
whole 0.048 0.129 15
1992 whole 0.038 0.032 16
PCBs (total) 1981 NR 0.611 1.274 12 2.0
NR 31 13
1985 fillet 25.6 13
1986 NR 9.73 0.395 0.301 12
fillet 23.52 2.567 14
1990 fillet 4.29 12
fillet 33.929 3.195 2.277 15
whole 7.794 2.926 15
1992 whole 13.19 5.5 16
phenanthrene 1990 fillet 0.311 12 NA
zinc 1985 fillet 20 13 30-1,000(12)
1986 fillet 48 10 14

ND –    Not Detected (with detection limit)

– =    Species not sampled or analyses not reported

NR –    Sample Type not reported

1981, 1986, 1990 (Ref. 12) data from Ontario, collected at Fighting Island (see Figure 1). Other data from MDNR collections, locations listed in Table 12.

Table 14. Contaminants in fish collected from the Detroit River at Fighting Island, Ontario data, 1981-1986
Chemical Date Maximum Concentration
(ppm)
MDPH Level of Concern(14)
(ppm)
Rock Bass White Bass Northern Pike
chlordane (total) 1981 0.039 0.046 0.3
1986 0.003 0.044 ND (0.002)
4,4'-DDD 1981 0.048 0.058 5.0(15)
1986 0.021 0.118 0.005
4,4'-DDE 1981 0.047 0.070
1986 0.276 0.162 0.003
4,4'-DDT 1981 0.017 0.027
1986 0.037 0.035 ND (0.002)
hexachlorobenzene 1981 0.027 0.017 0.2-0.5(16)
1986 0.003 0.009 0.003
mercury 1981 0.97 0.58 0.5
1986 0.53 0.42 0.30
octachlorostyrene 1981 0.046 0.061 NA
1986 0.025 0.013 0.005
PCBs (total) 1981 1.637 2.386 2.0
1986 0.622 2.920 0.274

Reference: 12

ND –    Not Detected (with detection limit)

– =    Species not sampled or analyses not reported

NR –    Sample Type not reported

Table 15. Summary of results for total, WAD, and bioavailable cyanide in soil samples from the Lower Ecorse Creek Dump site
Sample Bioavailable
(ppm)
WAD
(ppm)
Total
(ppm)
A 7.6 214 3,487
B 24.8 636 7,777
C 3.3 96 853
D 5.4 38 50
E 7.2 116 2,870

Reference 22, Table 14

Sample types and sample locations are not available.

Comparison Value: 40 ppm (RMEG)

Table 16. Cyanide exposure dose evaluation, Lower Ecorse Creek Dump Site.
Contaminated material
Population
Total WAD Bioavailable(17)
surface soil

child (pica) >LDLO >RfD <RfD

child (incidental) >RfD <RfD <RfD

adult (incidental) <RfD <RfD <RfD
subsurface soil

child (pica) >LDLO >LDLO >RfD

child (incidental) >LDLO >RfD <RfD

adult (incidental) >RfD <RfD <RfD

LDLO – Lowest Observed Lethal Dose in humans (from Reference 10)
RfD –    U.S. EPA Reference Dose (chronic)

WAD –    Weak Acid Dissociated cyanide

>   =   Ingestion exposure might exceed standard (but not likely to exceed next higher standard)

<   =   Ingestion exposure is not likely to exceed standard

RESPONSIVENESS STATEMENT

The MDPH released a draft of this Public Health Assessment for public comment on March 1, 1995. The comment period lasted until March 31, 1995, and was extended to April 15, 1995, at the request of an area resident. Comments received are addressed below.

  1. Comment: Is it necessary to use the word "Dump" to refer to our neighborhood?

    Response: We understand your feelings about the word "dump" in the name used for the site. We do not name Superfund sites, but are required to use the names under which the sites are officially listed on the National Priorities List. Earlier, the site in your neighborhood was called the Wyandotte Cyanide site and then the North Drive site. The "Lower Ecorse Creek Dump site" has become the "official" name of the site, despite the unfortunate connotations for your neighborhood.

  2. Comment: Some of the language in the document is too technical, therefore the ordinary layman is not aware if we have a problem or not. Can it be deciphered for us in easier terms?

    Response: We have clarified and simplified some of the more technical language for the final release of the assessment.

  3. Comment: On page 11, since there is contamination, why would a crab apple tree be moved from one contaminated area to another? It would still be exposed to free cyanide [in the] ground water, let alone any compounds in the soil.

    Response: Our understanding is that the reason the tree was moved was not for the purpose of avoiding the contamination. The mention in the assessment was merely to provide anecdotal evidence that the blue material does migrate into plants.

  4. Comment: If the wind blows predominantly from the northeast and southeast as stated (regardless of what %), why wouldn't this affect free cyanide from blowing around when the wind shifts again and again?

    Response: The prevailing winds throughout Michigan are from the west to southwest, though wind may blow from any direction at any given time. At the section of the assessment you mentioned, the assessors used the prevailing wind direction to evaluate the possible impact on the site from nearby facilities that reported to the U.S. EPA's Toxic Chemical Release Inventory (TRI) that they released chemicals to the air. Since the primary exposed population lives on the site, which is not downwind of these facilities in most weather conditions, we think it very unlikely that these additional potential sources of exposure contribute to the exposure of those people on the site.

  5. Comment: Have we checked dead birds and animals, especially in the area in question?

    Response: No animals or birds from the area have been sampled and analyzed. We have been unable to find any reports of unusual numbers of dead birds or animals in the site area.

  6. Comment: Why hasn't the north side of the creek been tested to see how extensive this cyanide contamination is affecting the area?

    Response: In December 1994, a contractor for the U.S. EPA collected eight soil samples from the north bank of the Lower Ecorse River across from the site. Two of these samples contained cyanide, but at low concentrations (0.32 and 0.35 parts per million [ppm], ATSDR's comparison value for cyanide in soil is 40 ppm), comparable to that found in background soils (4, 24). This does not indicate that any contamination related to the site has reached the north bank of the river.

  7. Comment: Who thought that 6" of top soil would protect the public? It would take more than that to compact to 6". This was definitely not the answer.

    Response: The soil cover was not intended to be the ultimate solution, but as a temporary remedy while a more permanent solution was developed. Enough soil was indeed applied to compact to a stable six-inch-thick layer.

  8. Comment: It is further asked why a chemical-resistant coating [was] applied to the foundation? Lasting how long? Resistant means just that it resists chemicals, it does not retard chemicals. Perhaps the wrong word was used in the Health Assessment.

    Response: The coating is designed to seal the concrete and prevent water from seeping through cracks and pores in the basement walls. The chemical resistance was designed into the coating to prevent or slow down attacks on the coating by the chemicals in the water.

  9. Comment: It is also stated that the Detroit water intake is about a mile from the Ecorse River. ... I checked by car at the top of the bridge to the intake at Riverbank Street and it's 0.3 of a mile.

    Response: The intake pipe for the Detroit water system does come ashore at that point. However, to minimize the impact of onshore pollution sources on the water brought into the municipal system, the actual intake, the drawing end of the pipe, is located in the middle of the river, approximately 1 mile from the Michigan shore.

  10. Comment: What does the word CERCLIS mean?

    Response: CERCLIS is an acronym for the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act Information System. The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, is the formal title of the act that set up the Superfund program. CERCLIS is a database of places and incidents of environmental contamination maintained by the U.S. EPA. The National Priorities List, commonly called the Superfund list, is a subset of sites on CERCLIS that meet certain specifications.

  11. Comment: On viewing the soil test results which have been conducted over a period of years, there seems to be a marked increase in contaminants.

    Response: From our review of the sampling data, we do not believe that there is sufficient information available to agree or disagree with your conclusion. The apparent increase may be due to changes in sampling methods or locations rather than any increase over time.

  12. Comment: On long term, you cannot stop animals or even children from digging in yards. It's natural.

    Response: We share your concern.

  13. Comment: With a dump site of this magnitude, affecting 20 people, 8 homes and includes 11 lots at this point, it looks as though the families should be relocated and the site dug up and disposed of properly. No piecemeal methods are going to take care of the situation for generations to come.

    Response: We recognize your concerns, but do not agree with your conclusion. We believe that exposure can be prevented without such methods.

FOOTNOTES

1. Pica behavior is an abnormal consumption of non-food materials, such as soil, most often seen in children under 5 years of age.

2. From the sample numbers in the data sheets (9), not all samples were analyzed for the complete suite of analytes. There is no information available on the reasons for their selection.

3. Of the standard analysis techniques for cyanide, Weak Acid Dissociable (WAD) cyanide analysis is considered to more accurately represent the biologically available cyanide present than total cyanide analysis. The WAD analysis measures the amount of cyanide in the sample that would be likely to dissolve under conditions in the stomach and absorbed by the intestine.

4. ATSDR prefers surface soil samples to be no more than 3 inches deep to accurately reflect the conditions people are likely to come into contact with.

5. See note 4, page 7.

6. Assuming that the total cyanide detected is free cyanide. The cyanide in the soil at the site is in an iron complex which binds the cyanide ion tightly so it is less likely to cause health effects than free cyanide.

7. Combined benzo(b)fluoranthene and benzo(k)fluoranthene.

8. Combined benzo(b)fluoranthene and benzo(k)fluoranthene.

9. Combined benzo(b)fluoranthene and benzo(k)fluoranthene.

10. Fillets are skinless for carp, with skin on for other species.

11. MDPH uses FDA Action Levels, except for mercury (FDA – 1 ppm) and dioxins (FDA – 25 ppt 2,3,7,8-TCDD equivalents).

12. International range of legal limits in fish (17). No MDPH or U.S. FDA Level of Concern.

13. Total DDT, DDD, and DDE.

14. MDPH uses FDA Action Levels, except for mercury (FDA – 1 ppm).

15. Total DDT, DDD, and DDE.

16. International range of legal limits in fish (17). No MDPH or U.S. FDA Level of Concern.

17. Calculated after Ref. 22

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. #