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

PUBLIC HEALTH ASSESSMENT

MOTOR WHEEL
LANSING TOWNSHIP, INGHAM COUNTY, MICHIGAN


APPENDIX A: FIGURES

Site Location
Figure 1. Site Location

Isoconcentrations of 1,2-Dichloroethene in the Glacial Aquifer
Figure 2. Isoconcentrations of 1,2-Dichloroethene in the Glacial Aquifer (Reference 2, Fig. 4.4)


APPENDIX B: TABLES

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
(ppm)

Comparison Value
(ppm)

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
(ppm)

Sample Depth
(ft.)

Comparison Value
(ppm)

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)
40R (t)

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
(ppm)

Comparison Value
(ppm)

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)
100A (t)

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
(ppb)

Comparison Value
(ppb)

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
(ppb)

Comparison Value
(ppb)

1,1-Dichloroethane

97

NA

1,2-Dichloroethane

6.3

0.4C

1,2-DCE (total)

500

70A (c)
100A (t)

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
48823

562

306.93,5

52

30.43,5

121

133.63,5

20

*

Zip code
48906

555

343.0

75

46.42

150

183.0

46

*

Zip code
48912

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


RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY

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.

  1. 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).

  1. 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.

  1. 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.

  1. 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.

  1. 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.

  1. 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.

  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.

  1. 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.

  1. Page 2, 2, line 6: Please change the word "their" to "its".

Response: The suggested revision has been made.

  1. 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.

  1. 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.

  1. 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.

  1. 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.

  1. 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.

  1. 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.
  2. 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.

  1. 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.

  1. 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.


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. #