PUBLIC HEALTH ASSESSMENT
MOTOR WHEEL
LANSING TOWNSHIP, INGHAM COUNTY, MICHIGAN
Figure 2. Isoconcentrations of 1,2-Dichloroethene in the Glacial Aquifer (Reference 2, Fig. 4.4)
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Contaminants of concern at the Motor Wheel Disposal Area site.
Table 2. Surface Soil Concentrations
Table 3. Sub-Surface Soil Concentrations
Table 4. Sediment concentrations of contaminants of concern.
Table 5. Maximum concentrations of chemicals in the groundwater in on-site, down-gradient monitoring wells.
Table 6. Maximum concentrations of metals in unfiltered groundwater samples from the Saginaw Aquifer at the Motor Wheel Disposal Area site, July-November 1991.
Table 7. Maximum concentrations of chemicals in the groundwater in off-site or up-gradient monitoring wells.
Table 8. Number of New Cases of Cancer Observed and Expected for Selected Zip Codes, 1985-1990
Table 9. Number of New Cases of Cancer of the Lung and Bronchus Observed and Expected for Selected Zip Codes, 1985-1990
Table 10. Number of Deaths Due to Cancer Observed and Expected for Selected Zip Codes, 1989-1991
Table 11. Number of Deaths Due to Cancer of the Lung and Bronchus Observed and Expected for Selected Zip Codes, 1989-1991
Table 12. Numbers of Cancer Cases and Deaths and Age-Adjusted Rates for Select Areas
Table 1. Contaminants of concern at the Motor Wheel Disposal Area site.
aldrin
antimony
arsenic
benzene
2-butanone
cadmium
carbon disulfide
chloroethane
chloroform
chromium
copper
di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (DEHP)
dibenzofuran
1,1-dichloroethane
1,2-dichloroethane
1,1-dichloroethylene (1,1-DCE)
1,2-dichloroethylene (1,2-DCE)
dieldrin
endosulfan sulfate
ethylbenzene
fluoride
2-hexanone
lead
mercury
naphthalene
nickel
pentachlorophenol
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)
selenium
tetrachloroethylene (PCE)
thallium
toluene
trichloroethylene (TCE)
2,4,5-trichlorophenol
vinyl chloride
zinc
Table 2. Surface Soil Concentrations
|
Chemical |
Maximum Concentration |
Comparison Value |
|
Antimony |
14.2 |
0.8R |
|
Cadmium |
5.9 |
0.4E |
|
Chromium |
191 |
10R (VI) |
|
Copper |
255 |
NA |
|
Lead |
188 |
NA |
|
Mercury |
0.15 |
NA |
|
Nickel |
71.5 |
NA |
|
Selenium |
0.6 |
6E |
|
Thallium |
0.8 |
NA |
|
Zinc |
11,300 |
NA |
|
Aldrin |
0.216 |
0.06R |
|
Dieldrin |
0.737 |
0.1E |
|
DEHP |
0.270 |
40R |
|
Fluoranthene (4-Ring PAH) |
0.323 |
80R |
- Reference: 2
NA — Not Available
(VI)— for Chromium(VI)
Comparison Value Bases:
- E — ATSDR Environmental Media
Exposure Guides (EMEG)
R — Concentration calculated from U.S. EPA Reference Dose for chronic ingestion, child consumption, pica behavior
Table 3. Sub-Surface Soil Concentrations
| Chemical |
Maximum Concentration |
Sample Depth |
Comparison Value |
| Antimony |
14.0 |
22-24 |
0.8R |
| Arsenic |
141.0 |
10-12 |
0.6R |
| Cadmium |
39.3 |
16-18 |
0.4E |
| Chromium |
427 |
16-18 |
10E (VI) |
| Copper |
1,540 |
10-12 |
NA |
| Lead |
5,020 |
13-15 |
NA |
| Mercury |
2.1 |
16-18 |
NA |
| Nickel |
174 |
13-15 |
NA |
| Selenium |
23.6 |
16-18 |
6E |
| Thallium |
0.3 |
0-2 |
NA |
| Zinc |
7,100 |
13-15 |
NA |
| Aroclor-1254 |
9.44 |
16-18 |
0.01E, 0.09C |
| Aroclor-1260 |
0.458 |
8-10 |
|
| Aldrin |
0.0274 |
8-10 |
0.06E |
| Dieldrin |
13.3 |
10-12 |
0.1E |
| Endosulfan sulfate |
0.319 |
2-4 |
0.1R |
| DEHP |
1.31 |
0-2 |
40R |
| Dibenzofuran |
18.3 |
22-24 |
NA |
| 2-Ring PAHs |
48.6 |
22-24 |
NA |
| 3-Ring PAHs |
170. |
22-24 |
NA |
| 4-Ring PAHs |
194. |
22-24 |
NA |
| 5-Ring PAHs |
64.8 |
9-12 |
NA |
| 6-Ring PAHs |
16.7 |
9-12 |
NA |
| 1,2-DCE (total) |
1,670 |
32-34 |
NA (c) |
| TCE |
64.9 |
32-34 |
NA |
| Vinyl Chloride |
0.018 |
10-12 |
0.04E |
| Pentachlorophenol |
19.8 |
9-12 |
60R |
| 2-Butanone |
0.0697 |
20-22 |
NA |
| 2-Hexanone |
0.0429 |
9-12 |
NA |
| Carbon disulfide |
0.123 |
20-22 |
200R |
| Benzene |
0.010 |
4-6 |
24C |
| Ethylbenzene |
1,090 |
32-34 |
200R |
| Toluene |
4,160 |
32-34 |
400R |
| Xylenes (total) |
1,900 |
32-34 |
4,000R |
Reference: 2
NA -- Not Available
(VI)-- For Chromium(VI)
(c) -- cis- isomer
(t) -- trans- isomer
Comparison Value Bases:
- E -- ATSDR Environmental Media Exposure Guides (EMEG)
R -- Concentrations calculated from U.S. EPA Reference Dose for chronic ingestion, child consumption, pica behavior
C -- Cancer Risk Evaluation Guide, based on adult ingestion and body weight, and 10-6 lifetime cancer risk.
Table 4. Sediment concentrations of contaminants of concern.
|
Chemical |
Maximum Concentration |
Comparison Value |
|
Thallium |
0.3 |
NA |
|
Zinc |
92.4 |
NA |
|
2-Butanone |
0.0529 |
NA |
|
Toluene |
0.0205 |
400R |
Reference: 2
NA — Not Available
Comparison Value Basis:
R — Concentrations calculated from U.S. EPA Reference Dose for chronic ingestion, child consumption, pica behavior
Table 5. Maximum concentrations of chemicals in the groundwater
in on-site, down-gradient monitoring wells.
| Chemical | Maximum Concentration (ppb) |
Comparison Value (ppb) |
|
| Perched | Glacial | ||
| 1,1-DCE |
6.6 |
6.3 |
90E, 0.06C |
| 1,2-Dichloroethane |
ND |
7.8 |
5M, 0.4C |
| 1,2-DCE (total) |
900 |
1,700 |
70A (c) |
| 2-Butanone |
11 |
6.8 |
200A |
| 2-Hexanone |
43 |
26 |
NA |
| 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol |
9 |
ND |
1,000R |
| Chloroform |
ND |
9.7 |
100E, 5.7C |
| Benzene |
28 |
8.5 |
5M, 1.2C |
| DEHP |
19.4 |
67.1 |
200R, 2.5C |
| Ethylbenzene |
170 |
ND |
700A |
| Naphthalene |
15.9 |
ND |
20A |
| PCE |
5.3 |
8.7 |
100R, 0.7C |
| TCE |
8.9 |
130 |
5M |
| Toluene |
300 |
ND |
1,000A |
| Vinyl chloride |
90 |
790 |
0.2E |
| Xylenes (total) |
150 |
ND |
10,000A |
| Zinc |
4,000 |
10,000 |
2,000A |
| Nitrate |
1,250,000 |
678,000 |
16,000R |
| Chloride |
1,280,000 |
1,380,000 |
NA |
| Fluoride |
85,000 |
101,000 |
600R |
| Sulfate |
1,700,000 |
1,510,000 |
400,000M |
Reference: 2
ND -- Not Detected
NA -- Not Available
(c) -- cis- isomer
(t) -- trans- isomer
- Comparison Value Bases:
- E -- ATSDR Environmental Media Exposure
Guides (EMEG)
R -- Concentrations calculated from U.S. EPA Reference Dose for chronic ingestion, child consumption, pica behavior
C -- Cancer Risk Evaluation Guide, based on adult ingestion and body weight, and 10-6 lifetime cancer risk.
M -- U.S. EPA Safe Drinking Water Act Maximum Contaminant Levels
A -- U.S. EPA Lifetime Drinking Water Health Advisories
Table 6. Maximum concentrations of metals in unfiltered
groundwater samples from the Saginaw Aquifer at the Motor Wheel Disposal Area
site, July-November 1991.
|
Metal |
Maximum Concentration |
Comparison Value |
|
Antimony |
102 |
3A |
|
Arsenic |
6.4B |
3R |
|
Cadmium |
24 |
2E |
|
Lead |
5,610 |
15PL |
|
Zinc |
164,000 |
2,000A |
Reference: 1
B — Analyte also reported in laboratory blank sample.
- Comparison Value Bases:
- E — ATSDR Environmental Media
Exposure Guides (EMEG)
R — Concentrations calculated from U.S. EPA Reference Dose for chronic ingestion, child consumption
A — U.S. EPA Lifetime Drinking Water Health Advisories
PL — U.S. EPA Proposed Drinking Water Action Level
Table 7. Maximum concentrations of chemicals in the groundwater
in off-site or upgradient monitoring wells.
|
Chemical |
Maximum Concentration |
Comparison Value |
|
1,1-Dichloroethane |
97 |
NA |
|
1,2-Dichloroethane |
6.3 |
0.4C |
|
1,2-DCE (total) |
500 |
70A (c) |
|
2-Hexanone |
5.3 |
NA |
|
Chloroethane |
230 |
NA |
|
Benzene |
5 |
5M, 1.2C |
|
DEHP |
122 |
200R, 2.5C |
|
PCE |
7.9 |
100R |
|
TCE |
30 |
5M |
|
Vinyl chloride |
180 |
0.2E |
|
Zinc |
8,400 |
2,000A |
|
Nitrate |
28,300 |
10,000M |
|
Chloride |
633,000 |
NA |
|
Fluoride |
7,200 |
600R |
|
Sulfate |
435,500 |
400,000M |
Reference: 2
NA — Not Available
(c) — cis‑ isomer
(t) — trans‑ isomer
- Comparison Value Bases:
- E —
ATSDR Environmental Media Exposure Guides (EMEG)
R — Concentrations calculated from U.S. EPA Reference Dose for chronic ingestion, child consumption
C — Cancer Risk Evaluation Guide, based on adult ingestion and body weight, and 10‑6 lifetime cancer risk.
M — U.S. EPA Safe Drinking Water Act Maximum Contaminant Levels
A — U.S. EPA Lifetime Drinking Water Health Advisories
Table 8. Number of New Cases of Cancer Observed and Expected
for Selected Zip Codes, 1985-1990.
|
Zip |
City |
Year |
Observed1 |
Expected2 |
Obs/Exp |
|
48823 |
East Lansing |
1985 |
94 |
104.5 |
0.90 |
|
1986 |
100 |
112.4 |
0.89 |
||
|
1987 |
87 |
114.4 |
0.76** |
||
|
1988 |
86 |
117.7 |
0.73** |
||
|
1989 |
90 |
116.3 |
0.77* |
||
|
1990 |
105 |
121.1 |
0.87 |
||
|
48906 |
Lansing |
1985 |
104 |
89.5 |
1.16 |
|
1986 |
96 |
96.0 |
1.00 |
||
|
1987 |
81 |
103.0 |
0.79* |
||
|
1988 |
93 |
104.6 |
0.89 |
||
|
1989 |
83 |
103.5 |
0.80* |
||
|
1990 |
98 |
107.0 |
0.92 |
||
|
48912 |
Lansing |
1985 |
68 |
69.0 |
0.99 |
|
1986 |
70 |
71.3 |
0.98 |
||
|
1987 |
65 |
68.3 |
0.95 |
||
|
1988 |
47 |
67.9 |
0.69** |
||
|
1989 |
73 |
67.1 |
1.09 |
||
|
1990 |
58 |
69.6 |
0.83 |
* Ratio of observed to expected deaths was significantly lower than 1.00 (p < 0.05).
** Ratio of observed to expected deaths was significantly lower than 1.00 (p < 0.01).
1. Includes cases diagnosed between 1985 and 1990 and reported to the Michigan Department of Public Health by December 31, 1991.
2. Calculated by applying the age- and sex-specific incidence rates for Michigan to the age- and sex-specific Zip code area population estimates.
Reference: 28
Table 9. Number of New Cases of Cancer of the Lung and Bronchus
Observed and Expected for Selected Zip Codes, 1985-1990.
|
Zip |
City |
Year |
Observed1 |
Expected2 |
Obs/Exp |
|
48823 |
East Lansing |
1985 |
6 |
14.6 |
0.41* |
|
1986 |
11 |
16.1 |
0.68 |
||
|
1987 |
11 |
15.3 |
0.72 |
||
|
1988 |
5 |
16.3 |
0.31** |
||
|
1989 |
8 |
16.1 |
0.50* |
||
|
1990 |
11 |
15.9 |
0.69 |
||
|
48906 |
Lansing |
1985 |
14 |
14.4 |
0.97 |
|
1986 |
12 |
15.1 |
0.79 |
||
|
1987 |
10 |
15.7 |
0.64 |
||
|
1988 |
15 |
16.3 |
0.92 |
||
|
1989 |
9 |
16.2 |
0.56 |
||
|
1990 |
15 |
16.0 |
0.94 |
||
|
48912 |
Lansing |
1985 |
9 |
10.6 |
0.85 |
|
1986 |
6 |
10.7 |
0.56 |
||
|
1987 |
6 |
9.8 |
0.61 |
||
|
1988 |
4 |
10.0 |
0.40 |
||
|
1989 |
8 |
9.9 |
0.81 |
||
|
1990 |
12 |
9.8 |
1.22 |
* Ratio of observed to expected deaths was significantly lower than 1.00 (p < 0.05).
** Ratio of observed to expected deaths was significantly lower than 1.00 (p < 0.01).
1. Includes cases diagnosed between 1985 and 1990 and reported to the Michigan Department of Public Health by December 31, 1991.
2. Calculated by applying the age- and sex-specific incidence rates for Michigan to the age- and sex-specific Zip code area population estimates.
Reference: 28
Table 10. Number of Deaths Due to Cancer Observed and Expected
for Selected Zip Codes, 1989-1991.
|
Zip |
City |
Year |
Observed |
Expected1 |
Obs/Exp |
|
48823 |
East Lansing |
1989 |
26 |
53.5 |
0.49** |
|
1990 |
48 |
54.1 |
0.89 |
||
|
1991 |
47 |
56.3 |
0.83 |
||
|
48906 |
Lansing |
1989 |
51 |
48.4 |
1.05 |
|
1990 |
51 |
49.3 |
1.03 |
||
|
1991 |
48 |
51.3 |
0.94 |
||
|
48912 |
Lansing |
1989 |
46 |
32.5 |
1.42* |
|
1990 |
25 |
33.0 |
0.76 |
||
|
1991 |
27 |
34.5 |
0.78 |
* Ratio of observed to expected deaths was significantly higher than 1.00 (p < 0.05).
** Ratio of observed to expected deaths was significantly lower than 1.00 (p < 0.01).
1. Calculated by applying the age- and sex-specific death rates for Michigan to the age- and sex-specific Zip code area population estimates.
Reference: 28
Table 11. Number of Deaths Due to Cancer of the Lung and
Bronchus Bserved and Expected for Selected Zip Codes, 1989-1991.
|
Zip |
City |
Year |
Observed |
Expected1 |
Obs/Exp |
|
48823 |
East Lansing |
1989 |
4 |
13.6 |
0.29** |
|
1990 |
10 |
13.9 |
0.72 |
||
|
1991 |
6 |
14.5 |
0.41* |
||
|
48906 |
Lansing |
1989 |
11 |
13.6 |
0.81 |
|
1990 |
19 |
13.8 |
1.38 |
||
|
1991 |
16 |
14.4 |
1.11 |
||
|
48912 |
Lansing |
1989 |
8 |
8.4 |
0.95 |
|
1990 |
9 |
8.6 |
1.05 |
||
|
1991 |
7 |
9.0 |
0.78 |
* Ratio of observed to expected deaths was significantly lower than 1.00 (p < 0.05).
** Ratio of observed to expected deaths was significantly lower than 1.00 (p < 0.01).
1. Calculated by applying the age- and sex-specific death rates for Michigan to the age- and sex-specific Zip code area population estimates.
Reference: 28
Table 12. Numbers of Cancer Cases and Deaths and Age-Adjusted
Rates for Select Areas.
|
Area |
Incidence, 1985-19901 |
Deaths, 1989-1991 |
||||||
|
All Sites |
Lung |
All Sites |
Lung |
|||||
|
Number |
Rate |
Number |
Rate |
Number |
Rate |
Number |
Rate |
|
|
Zip code |
562 |
306.93,5 |
52 |
30.43,5 |
121 |
133.63,5 |
20 |
* |
|
Zip code |
555 |
343.0 |
75 |
46.42 |
150 |
183.0 |
46 |
* |
|
Zip code |
381 |
334.0 |
45 |
* |
98 |
165.3 |
24 |
* |
|
Ingham County excluding above Zip codes |
3,291 |
346.63 |
424 |
46.93 |
833 |
172.1 |
210 |
44.6 |
|
State |
220,572 |
369.2 |
34,191 |
58.5 |
55,881 |
179.4 |
15,234 |
50.1 |
* Rate is considered statistically unreliable due to the small number of cases reported
1. Includes cases diagnosed between 1985 and 1990 and reported to the Michigan Department of Public Health by December 31, 1991.
2. Rate is significantly lower than State rate at p < 0.05.
3. Rate is significantly lower than State rate at p < 0.01.
4. Rate is significantly lower than Ingham County rate at p < 0.05.
5. Rate is significantly lower than Ingham County rate at p < 0.01.
Reference: 28
This Public Health Assessment was released for public comment on April 20, 1993, for a Public Comment Period lasting until May 20, 1993. A resident living approximately 0.5 mile northeast of the site wrote to MDPH describing a high incidence of various sorts of cancer among the people of her neighborhood. Her letter was forwarded to the appropriate section of MDPH for further investigation. Another resident of the site area wrote expressing concern about the safety of the remediation. An engineer for Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company, a former owner (1964-1986) of Motor Wheel Corporation, and therefore one of the Potentially Responsible Parties for the site, submitted comments on the draft assessment. His comments and MDPH and ATSDR's responses are given below. The comments are indexed by page and paragraph of the draft reviewed, which may not agree with the current revised document.
- Page 1, 1, line 1: The Site, here and elsewhere in the document, should be referred to as the "Motor Wheel Disposal Site", not "Motor Wheel Incorporated", to make it consistent with the common name used by EPA and MDNR.
Response: The text has been changed to refer to the "Motor Wheel Disposal Area site". The U.S. EPA's National Priorities List Sites: Michigan (September 1990), lists the site as "Motor Wheel, Inc." (p. 93).
- Page 1, 1, line 4: It is indicated in the draft that the site was "used by Motor Wheel Corporation and other area industries". Please add the specific names of the other entities who, among others, also used the site: W R Grace & Co-Conn, Lansing Board of Water & Light, and CWC Castings Division of Textron, Inc.
Response: This short list of other users of the site has been added to the Background Section of the revised assessment.
- Page 1, 1, line 5: Please add the words "Motor Wheel Corporation and" before the words "the site owners".
Response: The sentence has been revised as suggested, though some of the removals referred to in this sentence were done while Motor Wheel Corporation owned the site.
- Page 1, 1, line 9: Please add the words "and fluoride" after the words "organic chemicals".
Response: The change has been made. See also the response to comment 15.
- Page 1, 1, lines 10-11: The sentence should read "Contamination WAS detected SEVERAL YEARS AGO in a well ..." (suggested changes are capitalized).
Response: The sentence has been revised as suggested.
- Page 2, 1, line 1: As indicated previously, the Site name should be the "Motor Wheel Disposal Site"
Response: See our response to comment 1.
- Page 2, 2, line 1: According to records on file, the "site property" was purchased by Motor Wheel Corporation in 1938, not 1926 as indicated in the draft.
Response: The date has been changed, however, the RI report (p. 5) says the corporation bought the site, and eight acres that are now occupied by W. R. Grace & Co., in 1926.
- Page 2, 2, line 2: Please change the phrase "in 1938 to dispose of" to read "in 1938 and disposed of".
Response: The sentence has been revised, following the RI report.
- Page 2, 2, line 6: Please change the word "their" to "its".
Response: The suggested revision has been made.
- Page 2, 2, line 10 to end of paragraph: This wording should be corrected to indicate that MSV Associates may have uncovered waste materials and soils, and portions of the clay cover installed in the 1970's by Motor Wheel Corporation over the disposal area. All of these materials are believed to have been stockpiled on the west side of the site, and covered with clay.
Response: The RI report (p. 7) describes this operation in definite terms, without the qualifiers included in the proposed revision.
- Page 2, 3, line 1: Please insert the words "..., which is the responsibility of MSV Associates to maintain, ..." after the word "fence".
Response: The passage has been revised. MDPH does not think that the point Goodyear apparently intends is appropriate in this document.
- Page 2, 4, line 7: Please insert the words "regional data suggest" between the words "where" and "it".
Response: The suggested revision has been made.
- Page 3, 3, at end: Please reference the fact that additional studies in conjunction with Remedial Design are currently ongoing at the Site.
Response: The suggested revision has been made, in a new paragraph describing the Record of Decision for the site that the U.S. EPA signed in September 1991.
- Page 4, 4: The draft document refers to some of the neighboring sites surround the Motor Wheel Disposal Site, but it is not complete. We recommend the name of the Daggett Landfill, Brown Brothers Landfill, and the Blue Ribbon Builders sites be mentioned in this paragraph.
Response: That paragraph lists only sites in the vicinity of the Motor Wheel Disposal Area site that have been listed on the U.S. EPA National Priorities List or the List of Sites of Environmental Contamination compiled under the Michigan Environmental Response Act (Act 307). MDPH does not think it appropriate to list other operations in the vicinity of the site by name.
- Page 5, 3: The Toxic Chemical Release Inventory (TRI) for the W R Grace facility is indicated to have included several compounds, but it is notable that no mention of fluoride is made. The RI/FS process clearly delineated fluoride as a major contaminant found to have originated in the area of the Site. Goodyear strongly believes the dominant source of these fluoride compounds was the former W R Grace facility, or its predecessors.
The draft document indicates "none of these chemicals appear to have affected the Motor Wheel site". In the Remedial Investigation, it was determined that fluoride clearly affected the Site. See Table 4.9 in the Remedial Investigation report (reference number 2 in the draft document). Also, in the Risk Assessment for the site (reference number 3 in the draft document), fluoride is indicated as the primary contributor to the non-carcinogenic risk (in the perched zone and glacial aquifer groundwater), such that the Hazard Index exceeds 1. In the remedy for the Site, there is to be specific remedial equipment to treat fluoride. In view of this, Goodyear believes that fluoride should be included as a "contaminant of concern" in Table 1 of the document.
Response: MDPH has reviewed the data, and has included fluoride as a contaminant of concern in the current revision of the assessment. It was omitted through an oversight on the part of the assessors. As for the comments about the TRI report from W. R. Grace & Co., MDPH simply repeated what they found in the TRI database. There was no mention of fluoride in the reports from W. R. Grace in the database.
- Page 5, 3 (continued): The last sentence of the paragraph refers to a "second facility listed on the TRI" that reported releases of chemicals. Goodyear requests that the revised document identify that facility by name.
Response: The reference has been expanded and the name included.
- Page 12, 4, lines 12 and 13: This sentence indicates a groundwater supply well formerly used by MSV associates is no longer in use. We can confirm that this is true.
Response: Thank you for the information. We have revised the sentance to a more definitive statement.
