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

PUBLIC HEALTH ASSESSMENT

PACKAGING CORPORATION OF AMERICA
FILER CITY, MANISTEE COUNTY, MICHIGAN


APPENDIX A. - FIGURES

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Site Location

Figure 2. Site Features



Figure 1. Site Location



Figure 2. Site Features


APPENDIX B. - TABLES

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Population of civil divisions near the Packaging Corporation site.
Table 2. Concentrations of contaminants of concern detected in surface water samples from Manistee Lake, 1957-1983.
Table 3. Contaminants of concern at the Packaging Corporation of America site
Table 4. Maximum concentrations of contaminants of concern detected in "surficial soil" samples from the lagoon areas in September 1986
Table 5. Maximum concentrations of contaminants of concern detected in deeper sub-surface soil samples from the lagoon area in September 1986
Table 6. Concentrations of contaminants of concern detected in surface water from Lagoons 2 and 3 in September 1986
Table 7. Maximum concentrations of contaminants of concern detected in sediment samples from lagoons 2 and 3 in September 1986
Table 8. Concentrations of contaminants of concern detected in groundwater from on-site monitoring wells in 1987, 1988, and 1992
Table 9. Concentrations of contaminants of concern detected in groundwater from monitoring wells near the PCA site in 1987, 1988, and 1992
Table 10. Concentrations of contaminants of concern detected in groundwater from beneath Manistee Lake in December 1988 and September 1992
Table 11. Concentrations of contaminants of concern detected in groundwater from residential and industrial wells near the PCA site, November 1988
Table 12. Maximum concentrations of contaminants of concern detected in sediment samples from Manistee
Lake.
Table 13. Concentrations of contaminants of concern detected in pore-water in sediment from Manistee Lake in September 1992
Table 14. Concentrations of chemical contaminants in fish collected from Manistee Lake, 1991
Table 15. Number of cancer deaths, by age group, in Filer and Stronach Townships, Manistee County, Michigan, 1980 -- 1991
Table 16. Number of cancer deaths, by site, in Filer and Stronach Townships, Manistee County, Michigan, 1980 -- 1991
Table 17. Number of cancer deaths, by age and sex, in Filer and Stronach Townships, Manistee County, Michigan, 1980 -- 1991
Table 18. Number of New Cases of Cancer Observed and Expected for Zip Code 49660, 1985-1990.
Table 19. Numbers of Cancer Cases and Age-Adjusted Rates: Michigan Residents and ZIP Code 49660, 1985-1990
Table 20. Numbers of New Cases Observed and Expected for Cancers of Selected Sites: Residents of ZIP Code 49660, 1985-1990


Table 1. Population of civil divisions near the Packaging Corporation site.

Name Population Date Reference/Comments
Manistee County 21,265 1990 7

City of Manistee 6,734 1990 7

East Lake 473 1990 7

Stronach Township(4) 688 1990 7


Stronach(5) 250 1987 Estimated from 3

Filer Township(4) 1,966 1990 7


Filer City/Oak Hill(5) 856 1980 3



Filer City(5) 170 1980 Estimated from 3



Oak Hill(5) 680 1980 Estimated from 3

Manistee Township 2,952 1990 7


Table 2. Concentrations of contaminants of concern detected in surface water samples from Manistee Lake, 1957-1983.

Chemical Date Maximum Concentration
(ppb)
Reference Comparison Value
(ppb)
ammonia 1970 1,100 14 30,000A
1973 440 15
4/83 65 16
6/83 72 16
chloride 2/57 3,450,000 13 NA
1958 1,780,000 15
1970 1,300,000 14
1973 130,000 14
1976 109,000 14
4/83 46,000 16
6/83 32,000 16
sulfate 4/83 16,000 16 NA
6/83 14,000 16

Contaminants of concern that were not detected in this medium are not listed.

Shaded chemicals exceed comparison values.

NA -- Not Available
carcinogen -- Carcinogen (proven, probable, or possible), but CREG is not available

Comparison Value Bases:

    E -- ATSDR Environmental Media Evaluation Guides (EMEGs)
    C -- ATSDR Cancer Risk Evaluation Guides (CREGs)
    R -- Concentration derived from U.S. EPA Reference Dose (Chronic) by Ingestion, assuming child exposure
    A -- U.S. EPA Drinking Water Health Advisory (Lifetime)
    PL -- U.S. EPA Proposed Action Level for Lead in Drinking Water


Table 3. Contaminants of concern at the Packaging Corporation of America site

METALS AND INORGANIC
CHEMICALS
SEMI-VOLATILE ORGANIC
CHEMICALS
ammonia benzoic acid
antimony bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
arsenic 2-methylphenol
barium 4-methylphenol
cadmium phenol
chloride
chromium POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS
(PCBs)
copper
lead
manganese POLYCYCLIC AROMATIC
HYDROCARBONS
mercury
nickel
sodium anthracene
sulfate benzo(a)anthracene
vanadium benzo(a)pyrene
zinc chrysene
2-methylnaphthalene
VOLATILE ORGANIC CHEMICALS naphthalene
phenanthrene
tetrachloroethylene


Table 4. Maximum concentrations of contaminants of concern detected in "surficial soil" samples from the lagoon areas in September 1986

Chemical Maximum Concentration
(ppm)
Comparison Values
(ppm)
on-site background
antimony ND (44) 9.4 0.8R
arsenic ND (8.3) 2.9 0.6E, 0.4C
barium 163 30 100R
cadmium 21 1.2 1E, carcinogen
calcium 228,000 1,150 NA
chromium 8.1 3 2,000R (III)
carcinogen (VI)
copper 173 3 NA
lead 128 12 carcinogen
manganese 231 183 200R
mercury 2.2 0.1 NA
nickel 8.9 3.2 carcinogen
sodium 17,800 266 NA
vanadium 10 7.5 NA
zinc 2,080 24 600R
bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 90.J 0.081J 40R
phenol 91 ND 1,000R
4-methylphenol 132 ND carcinogen
Reference: 3
Contaminants of concern that were not detected in this medium are not listed.
Shaded chemicals exceed comparison values.
ND -- Not Detected (with highest detection limit reported)
NA -- Not Available
carcinogen -- Carcinogen (proven, probable, or possible), but CREG is not available
Comparison Value Bases:
    E -- ATSDR Environmental Media Evaluation Guides (EMEGs)
    C -- ATSDR Cancer Risk Evaluation Guides (CREGs)
    R -- Concentration derived from U.S. EPA Reference Dose (Chronic) by Ingestion, assuming child exposure and pica behavior


Table 5. Maximum concentrations of contaminants of concern detected in deeper sub-surface soil samples from the lagoon area in September 1986

Chemical Maximum Concentration
(ppm)
Comparison Values
(ppm)
on-site background
antimony ND (8.4) 8.9 0.8R
arsenic ND (2.1) 2.3 0.6E, 0.4C
barium 6.3 20 100R
cadmium ND (1.1) 1.1 1E, carcinogen
calcium 452 601 NA
chromium 2.5 2.7 2,000R (III)
carcinogen (VI)
copper 4.8 2.9 NA
lead 1 4.7 carcinogen
manganese 11 86 200R
nickel 2 1.9 carcinogen
sodium 2,870 375 NA
vanadium 4 4.3 NA
zinc 8.9 17 600R
bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 0.14 0.16J 40R
Reference: 3

Contaminants of concern that were not detected in this medium are not listed.

Shaded chemicals exceed comparison values.

ND -- Not Detected (with highest detection limit reported)
NA -- Not Available
carcinogen -- Carcinogen (proven, probable, or possible), but CREG is not available

Comparison Value Bases:

    E -- ATSDR Environmental Media Evaluation Guides (EMEGs)
    C -- ATSDR Cancer Risk Evaluation Guides (CREGs)
    R -- Concentration derived from U.S. EPA Reference Dose (Chronic) by Ingestion, assuming child exposure and pica behavior


Table 6. Concentrations of contaminants of concern detected in surface water from Lagoons 2 and 3 in September 1986

Chemical Maximum Concentration
(ppb)
Comparison Values
(ppb)
arsenic 49 3R, 0.02C
barium 348 700R
chromium 19 10,000R (III)
carcinogen (VI)
copper 28 1,300PM
lead 16 15PL, carcinogen
manganese 501 1,000R
mercury 0.5 NA
nickel 27 carcinogen
sodium 1,050,000 NA
vanadium 28 NA
zinc 172 3,000R
bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 27 3C
2-methylphenol 32 carcinogen
4-methylphenol 180 carcinogen
benzoic acid 1,300 40,000R
Reference: 3
Contaminants of concern that were not detected in this medium are not listed.
Shaded chemicals exceed comparison values.
NA -- Not Available
carcinogen -- Carcinogen (proven, probable, or possible), but CREG is not available

Comparison Value Bases:

    E -- ATSDR Environmental Media Evaluation Guides (EMEGs)
    C -- ATSDR Cancer Risk Evaluation Guides (CREGs)
    R -- Concentration derived from U.S. EPA Reference Dose (Chronic) by Ingestion, assuming child exposure
    A -- U.S. EPA Drinking Water Health Advisory (Lifetime)
    PL -- U.S. EPA Proposed Action Level for Lead in Drinking Water
    PM -- U.S. EPA Proposed Maximum Contaminant Level under the Safe Drinking Water Act


Table 7. Maximum concentrations of contaminants of concern detected in sediment samples from lagoons 2 and 3 in September 1986

Chemical Maximum Concentration
(ppm)
Comparison Values
(ppm)
barium 633 100R
chromium 29 2,000R (III)
carcinogen (VI)
copper 139 NA
lead 112 carcinogen
manganese 2,200 200R
mercury 0.32 NA
nickel 20 carcinogen
sodium 74,300 NA
vanadium 15 NA
zinc 563 600R
bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 8.1J 40R
phenol 40 1,000R
2-methylphenol 1.7J carcinogen
4-methylphenol 32 carcinogen
2-methylnaphthalene 3.4J NA
phenanthrene 0.83J NA
Reference: 3

Contaminants of concern that were not detected in this medium are not listed.
Shaded chemicals exceed comparison values.
J -- Estimated Value
NA -- Not Available
carcinogen -- Carcinogen (proven, probable, or possible), but CREG is not available

Comparison Value Bases:

    E -- ATSDR Environmental Media Evaluation Guides (EMEGs)
    C -- ATSDR Cancer Risk Evaluation Guides (CREGs)
    R -- Concentration derived from U.S. EPA Reference Dose (Chronic) by Ingestion, assuming child exposure and pica behavior


Table 8. Concentrations of contaminants of concern detected in groundwater from on-site monitoring wells in 1987, 1988, and 1992

Chemical Date Maximum Concentration
(ppb)
Reference Comparison Values
(ppb)
Shallow Deep
arsenic 10/87 709 ND (10) 3 3R, 0.02C
11/88 924 NR 3
9/92 458 NR 5
barium 10/87 1,110 288 3 700R
11/88 NR NR 3
9/92 2,360 NR 5
cadmium 10/87 10 ND (4) 3 7E, carcinogen
11/88 NR NR 3
9/92 ND (5) NR 5
chloride 10/87 97,000 9,300 3 NA
11/88 11,000 NR 3
9/92 190,000 NR 5
chromium 10/87 864 6.J 3 10,000R (III)
carcinogen (VI)
11/88 779 NR 3
9/92 348 NR 5
copper 10/87 148 16.J 3 1,300PM
11/88 NR NR 3
9/92 ND (20) NR 5
lead 10/87 390 278 3 15PL, carcinogen
11/88 69 NR 3
9/92 ND (40) NR 5
manganese 10/87 1,140 7.J 3 1,000R
11/88 NR NR 3
9/92 131 NR 5
nickel 10/87 207 ND (8) 3 carcinogen
11/88 NR NR 3
9/92 120 NR 5
sodium 10/87 3,160,000 52,700 3 NA
11/88 1,300,000 NR 3
9/92 3,440,000 NR 5
sulfate 10/87 200,000 2,200 3 NA
11/88 600,000 NR 3
9/92 ND (100,000) NR 5
vanadium 10/87 6,280 ND (7) 3 NA
11/88 NR NR 3
9/92 1,460 NR 5
zinc 10/87 107,000 6,600 3 3,000R
11/88 17,900 NR 3
9/92 1,250 NR 5
tetrachloroethylene 10/87 18 NR 3 0.7C
11/88 NR NR 3
9/92 NR NR 5
bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 10/87 10 NR 3 3C
11/88 NR NR 3
9/92 ND (5) NR 5

Contaminants of concern that were not detected in this medium are not listed.

Shaded chemicals exceed comparison values.

ND -- Not Detected, with Detection Limit

NR -- Not Analyzed for, or not reported

NA -- Not Available
carcinogen -- Carcinogen (proven, probable, or possible), but CREG is not available

Comparison Value Bases:

    E -- ATSDR Environmental Media Evaluation Guides (EMEGs)
    C -- ATSDR Cancer Risk Evaluation Guides (CREGs)
    R -- Concentration derived from U.S. EPA Reference Dose (Chronic) by Ingestion, assuming child exposure
    A -- U.S. EPA Drinking Water Health Advisory (Lifetime)
    PL -- U.S. EPA Proposed Action Level for Lead in Drinking Water
    PM -- U.S. EPA Proposed Maximum Contaminant Level under the Safe Drinking Water Act



Table 9. Concentrations of contaminants of concern detected in groundwater from monitoring wells near the PCA site in 1987, 1988, and 1992

Chemical Date Maximum Concentration
(ppb)
Reference Comparison Values
(ppb)
Shallow Deep
antimony 10/87 ND (25) ND (25) 3 4R
11/88 NR NR 3
9/92 98 NR 5
arsenic 10/87 18 ND (10) 3 3R, 0.02C
11/88 443 NR 3
9/92 394 NR 5
barium 10/87 730 40.J 3 700R
11/88 NR NR 3
9/92 4,690 NR 5
cadmium 10/87 10 ND (4) 3 7E, carcinogen
11/88 NR NR 3
9/92 ND (5) NR 5
chloride 10/87 20,000,000 290,000 3 NA
11/88 26,000,000 NR 3
9/92 26,000,000 NR 5
chromium 10/87 128 ND (4) 3 10,000R (III)
carcinogen (VI)
11/88 246 NR 3
9/92 883 NR 5
copper 10/87 148 ND (6) 3 1,300PM
11/88 NR NR 3
9/92 130 NR 5
lead 10/87 390 6 3 15PL, carcinogen
11/88 92 NR 3
9/92 74.3 NR 5
manganese 10/87 1,100 91 3 1,000R
11/88 NR NR 3
9/92 1,400 NR 5
nickel 10/87 121 ND (8) 3 carcinogen
11/88 NR NR 3
9/92 305 NR 5
sodium 10/87 4,950,000 39,600 3 NA
11/88 19,900,000 NR 3
9/92 5,860,000 NR 5
sulfate 10/87 330,000 9,300 3 NA
11/88 110,000 NR 3
9/92 ND (100,000) NR 5
vanadium 10/87 64 ND (7) 3 NA
11/88 NR NR 3
9/92 5,090 NR 5
zinc 10/87 15,600 271 3 3,000R
11/88 53 NR 3
9/92 29,600 NR 5
phenol 10/87 70,000 NR 3 6,000R
11/88 NR NR 3
9/92 13,000 NR 5
2-methylphenol 10/87 6,200.J NR 3 carcinogen
11/88 NR NR 3
9/92 23,000 NR 5
4-methylphenol 10/87 16,000 NR 3 carcinogen
11/88 NR NR 3
9/92 17,000 NR 5
benzoic acid 10/87 240,000 NR 3 40,000R
11/88 NR NR 3
9/92 ND NR 5

Contaminants of concern that were not detected in this medium are not listed.

Shaded chemicals exceed comparison values.

ND -- Not Detected, with Detection Limit

NR -- Not Analyzed for, or not reported

NA -- Not Available
carcinogen -- Carcinogen (proven, probable, or possible), but CREG is not available

Comparison Value Bases:

    E -- ATSDR Environmental Media Evaluation Guides (EMEGs)
    C -- ATSDR Cancer Risk Evaluation Guides (CREGs)
    R -- Concentration derived from U.S. EPA Reference Dose (Chronic) by Ingestion, assuming child exposure
    A -- U.S. EPA Drinking Water Health Advisory (Lifetime)
    PL -- U.S. EPA Proposed Action Level for Lead in Drinking Water
    PM -- U.S. EPA Proposed Maximum Contaminant Level under the Safe Drinking Water Act


Table 10. Concentrations of contaminants of concern detected in groundwater from beneath Manistee Lake in December 1988 and September 1992

Chemical Date Maximum Concentration
(ppb)
Reference Comparison Values
(ppb)
arsenic 12/88 4.5J 3 3R, 0.02C
9/92 216 5
barium 12/88 NR 3 700R
9/92 6,010 5
chloride 12/88 28,000,000 3 NA
9/92 14,000,000 5
chromium 12/88 110 3 10,000R (III)
carcinogen (VI)
9/92 284 5
copper 12/88 NR 3 1,300PM
9/92 42.6 5
lead 12/88 2.7J 3 15PL, carcinogen
9/92 ND (40) 5
manganese 12/88 NR 3 1,000R
9/92 1,830 5
nickel 12/88 NR 3 carcinogen
9/92 85.9 5
sodium 12/88 2,270,000 3 NA
9/92 10,400,000 5
sulfate 12/88 32,000 3 NA
9/92 320,000 5
vanadium 12/88 NR 3 NA
9/92 1,190 5
zinc 12/88 1,320 3 3,000R
9/92 8,690 5

Contaminants of concern that were not detected in this medium are not listed.
Shaded chemicals exceed comparison values.

J -- Estimated Value, less than Contract Required Detection Limit but above Instrument Detection Limit
ND -- Not Detected, with Detection Limit
NR -- Not Analyzed for, or not reported
NA -- Not Available
carcinogen -- Carcinogen (proven, probable, or possible), but CREG is not available

Comparison Value Bases:

    E -- ATSDR Environmental Media Evaluation Guides (EMEGs)
    C -- ATSDR Cancer Risk Evaluation Guides (CREGs)
    R -- Concentration derived from U.S. EPA Reference Dose (Chronic) by Ingestion, assuming child exposure
    A -- U.S. EPA Drinking Water Health Advisory (Lifetime)
    PL -- U.S. EPA Proposed Action Level for Lead in Drinking Water


Table 11. Concentrations of contaminants of concern detected in groundwater from residential and industrial wells near the PCA site, November 1988

Chemical Maximum Concentration
(ppb)
Comparison Values
(ppb)
Residential Industrial
arsenic ND (2) ND (2) 3R, 0.02C
chloride 83,000 6,300 NA
chromium ND (4) ND (4) 10,000R (III)
carcinogen (VI)
lead ND (2) ND (2) 15PL, carcinogen
sodium 11,300 8,600 NA
sulfate 28,000 ND (1,000) NA
zinc 634 6.J 3,000R

Reference: 3

Contaminants of concern that were not detected in this medium are not listed.

Shaded chemicals exceed comparison values.

ND -- Not Detected, with Detection Limit

NR -- Not Analyzed for, or not reported

NA -- Not Available
carcinogen -- Carcinogen (proven, probable, or possible), but CREG is not available

Comparison Value Bases:

    E -- ATSDR Environmental Media Evaluation Guides (EMEGs)
    C -- ATSDR Cancer Risk Evaluation Guides (CREGs)
    R -- Concentration derived from U.S. EPA Reference Dose (Chronic) by Ingestion, assuming child exposure
    A -- U.S. EPA Drinking Water Health Advisory (Lifetime)
    PL -- U.S. EPA Proposed Action Level for Lead in Drinking Water
    PM -- U.S. EPA Proposed Maximum Contaminant Level under the Safe Drinking Water Act


Table 12. Maximum concentrations of contaminants of concern detected in sediment samples from Manistee Lake.

Chemical Date Maximum Concentration
(ppm)
Reference Comparison Values
(ppm)
arsenic 8/73 5 15 0.6E, 0.4C
barium 6/81 330 17 100R
cadmium 8/73 2.92 15 1E, carcinogen
6/81 2.5 17
chromium 8/73 42.8 15 2,000R (III)
carcinogen (VI)
6/81 230 17
copper 6/81 220 17 NA
lead 8/73 178 15 carcinogen
6/81 460 17
manganese 6/81 3,200 17 200R
mercury 8/73 1.39 15 NA
6/81 1.1 17
nickel 8/73 39.2 15 carcinogen
6/81 150 17
sodium 6/81 24,000 17 NA
vanadium 6/81 33 17 NA
zinc 6/81 260 17 600R
bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 6/81 1.9 17 40R
PCBs (total) 8/73 2.4 15 0.4E, 0.09C
6/81 0.777 17
benzo(a)pyrene 6/81 8.16 17 0.1C
benzo(a)anthracene and chrysene 6/81 33.5 17 carcinogen
naphthalene 6/81 6.7 17 NA
anthracene and phenanthrene 6/81 5.1 17 600R (anthracene)
NA (phenanthrene)

Contaminants of concern that were not detected in this medium are not listed.

Shaded chemicals exceed comparison values.

NA -- Not Available
carcinogen -- Carcinogen (proven, probable, or possible), but CREG is not available

Comparison Value Bases:

    E -- ATSDR Environmental Media Evaluation Guides (EMEGs)
    C -- ATSDR Cancer Risk Evaluation Guides (CREGs)
    R -- Concentration derived from U.S. EPA Reference Dose (Chronic) by Ingestion, assuming child exposure and pica behavior


Table 13. Concentrations of contaminants of concern detected in pore-water in sediment from Manistee Lake in September 1992

Chemical Maximum Concentration
(ppb)
Comparison Values
(ppb)
arsenic 34.8B 3R, 0.02C
barium 2,930 700R
cadmium 0.16 7E, carcinogen
chloride 200,000 NA
chromium 59.9 10,000R (III)
carcinogen (VI)
lead 1.6 15PL, carcinogen
manganese 2,240 1,000R
nickel 137 carcinogen
sodium 837,000 NA
sulfate ND (100,000) NA
vanadium 215 NA
zinc 1,320 3,000R
bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 83 3C

Reference: 5

Contaminants of concern that were not detected in this medium are not listed
Shaded chemicals exceed comparison values.
ND -- Not Detected (with detection limit)
NA -- Not Available
carcinogen -- Carcinogen (proven, probable, or possible), but CREG is not available

Comparison Value Bases:

    E -- ATSDR Environmental Media Evaluation Guides (EMEGs)
    C -- ATSDR Cancer Risk Evaluation Guides (CREGs)
    R -- Concentration derived from U.S. EPA Reference Dose (Chronic) by Ingestion, assuming child exposure
    A -- U.S. EPA Drinking Water Health Advisory (Lifetime)
    PL -- U.S. EPA Proposed Action Level for Lead in Drinking Water
    PM -- U.S. EPA Proposed Maximum Contaminant Level under the Safe Drinking Water Act


Table 14. Concentrations of chemical contaminants in fish collected from Manistee Lake, 1991

Chemical Maximum Concentration
(ppm)
MDPH Level of
Concern
(6)
(ppm)
Smallmouth Bass Walleye
mercury 0.310 0.320 0.5
dieldrin 0.024 0.034 0.3
hexachlorobenzene 0.002 0.002 NA
PCBs (total) 0.438 0.491 2.0
total chlordane isomers 0.059 0.091 0.3
toxaphene(7) 0.1J 0.125J 5.0
4,4'-DDD 0.017 0.023 5.0(8)
4,4'-DDE 0.144 0.189
4,4'-DDT 0.018 0.023
heptachlor epoxide 0.005 0.007 0.3

Reference: 20

J -- Estimated concentration

NA -- Not Available

Table 15. Number of cancer deaths, by age group, in Filer and Stronach Townships, Manistee County, Michigan, 1980 -- 1991

Year Age Group
< 45 45-54 55-64 65-74 75-84 85+ All ages
1980

1
1
2
1981
1 1 3 2
7
1982

2 2 3 1 8
1983
1
2 1 1 5
1984

2
1
3
1985

1 1
4 6
1986

4 1 1
6
1987
1 1 2 2
6
1988 2
2 2 3
9
1989
1

1 3 5
1990
1 1 2 1
5
1991 1
1 4 1
7
All years 3 5 16 19 17 9 69
 
    Reference: 29


Table 16. Number of cancer deaths, by site, in Filer and Stronach Townships, Manistee County, Michigan, 1980 -- 1991

Cancer Site '80 '81 '82 '83 '84 '85 '86 '87 '88 '89 '90 '91 All years
Trachea, Bronchus, or Lung 1 2 2 1 1 1 3 2 3 1
1 18
Colon 1 1 1



1


1 5
Breast

1


2
1

1 5
Prostate
1


1
1 1


4
Pancreas
1




1
1 1
4
Lymphoma

1
1 1


1

4
Rectum


1 1 1




1 4
Ovaries


1



2
1
4
Leukemia

1

1

1


3
Brain

1



1

1
3
Skin

1






1
2
Myeloma





1



1 2
Uterus
1









1
Cervix
1









1
Reticulosarcoma


1







1
Kidney


1







1
Gall Bladder








1

1
Bladder








1

1
Larynx









1
1
Pharynx










1 1
Bone










1 1
Not Specified




1

1


2
All sites 2 7 8 5 3 6 6 6 9 5 5 7 69
    Reference: 29


Table 17. Number of cancer deaths, by age and sex, in Filer and Stronach Townships, Manistee County, Michigan, 1980 -- 1991

Age Male Female Total
< 45 1 2 3
45-54 2 3 5
55-64 7 9 16
65-74 7 12 19
75-84 8 9 17
85+ 5 4 9
All ages 30 39 69
Reference: 29

Table 18. Number of New Cases of Cancer Observed and Expected for Zip Code 49660, 1985-1990.

ZIP Year Observed(9) Expected(10) Obs./Exp.
49660 1985 57 58.0 0.98
1986 69 69.1 1.00
1987 52 71.7 0.73
1988 72 70.7 1.02
1989 68 69.8 0.97
1990 76 72.9 1.04
1985-1990 394 412.2 0.96

Reference: 29

Table 19. Numbers of Cancer Cases and Age-Adjusted Rates: Michigan Residents and ZIP Code 49660, 1985-1990

Primary Site ZIP Code 49660 Michigan
Number Rate Number Rate
Colon 42 * 21,770 35.5
Larynx 5 * 2,962 5.2
Lung & Bronchus 54 51.2 34,191 58.5
Brain & CNS 6 * 3,324 5.8
All Sites 394 354.2 220,572 369.2


Reference: 29

* Rate is considered statistically unreliable, due to small number of cases.

Includes cases diagnosed between 1985 and 1990 and reported to the Michigan Department of Public Health by December 31, 1991.


Table 20. Numbers of New Cases Observed and Expected for Cancers of Selected Sites: Residents of ZIP Code 49660, 1985-1990

ZIP Site Observed(11) Expected(12) Obs./Exp.
49660 Colon 42 43.2 0.97
Larynx 5 5.4 0.93
Lung & Bronchus 54 64.1 0.84
Brain & CNS 6 5.5 1.09

Reference: 29


RESPONSIVENESS STATEMENT

The MDPH released a draft of this Public Health Assessment for public comment on March 29, 1995. The public comment period was open until April 28, 1995. MDPH received comments from the Environmental Manager for PCA (Reference 10) and from the MDNR site manager. Those comments, with MDPH's responses, are repeated below. Page and paragraph references are to the Initial Release of the Assessment.

Comments from the Environmental Manager for the Packaging Corporation of America:

Comment: We note that the six conclusions are matched by six recommendation that pertain to the same respective subject matter, and therefore we will comment on these six items in order:

  1. We disagree with conclusion Number 1 that the PCA site poses an "indeterminate" public health hazard at this time and that samples of "actual surface material" should be collected and analyzed for contaminants of concern. We believe there is no public health risk and there is no need for further sampling and testing.

    The ATSDR conclusion seems to be based on (a) the belief that surface samples were taken from just below the surface instead of "actual surface material" and (b) the test results showed elevated levels of some chemicals of concern in lagoon #1, and to a lesser extent in lagoons #2 and #3.

    The surface samples were "actual surface material". The Remedial Investigation report states on page 45 that "Surficial soil samples were collected with trowels after organic litter (grass, leaves and roots) were removed by shovel and gloved hand." Thus surface samples were taken from the true surface soil, with only the natural organic material removed because this would have affected the analysis of the soil for organic chemicals. Therefore, there is no need for additional samples and tests to characterize the surface soil.

    The Baseline Risk Assessment (BRA) concluded that the level of chemicals that were present in the surface sampled did not pose a risk to human health. Both Trespasser and Hunter scenarios were evaluated and no Hazard Index (HI) exceeded 0.04. The EPA agreed with this conclusion, stating in the Declaration of the Record of Decision (ROD): "EPA has determined that conditions at the site pose no current or potential unacceptable risk to human health or to the environment."

    Moreover, the ongoing "Landfill Closure" of lagoons #1, 2, and 3 has reduced risks even more. Lagoons #2 and 3 are being eliminated according to the "Preliminary Closure Plan for PCA Landfill" that had been approved by both the EPA and the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (DNR). The cellulose fiber sludge is being removed from lagoon #2 and in several years it will be revegetated and restored to its original condition. Lagoon #3, the landfill lagoon, will be capped with an impervious membrane and covered with 3 ft. of a clean soil vegetative layer. About 25% of it is already capped.

    In lagoon #1, all of the "soap skimmings" residue referred to on page 5 have already been removed.

    While this work is going on, access to lagoons #2 and #3 is controlled by the fence and gates mentioned in the ATSDR report.

    Lagoons #4 through 8 are not a concern because, as the ATSDR report says on page 10, "The RI contractors reported that residues from the wastes were not detected in lagoons 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8."

Response: The description of the "surficial soil" samples collected during the RI has been changed to agree with the description in the RI report. The description, however, leaves open the question of how much organic material was removed. The reference to roots raises the possibility that soil as well as loose litter may have been removed in the process of collection. The information on the removal of "soap skimmings" in Lagoon #1 has been added to the assessment.
  1. We agree with recommendation #2 that it is a good idea to have restrictions on the area above the groundwater plume to deter the installation of new wells, even though, as the ATSDR report notes, this is unlikely to occur. However, we believe that there already are sufficient safeguards in place. Let us bring to your attention a number of restrictions that already exist that prevent water well development:

    -- The Michigan Department of Public Health has forbidden the drilling of any new wells in any area above the plume.
    -- PCA owns most of the land above the plume and we have no objection to placing a deed restriction on it to complement the Department of Health's proscription.
    -- There already are deed restrictions on the property owned by the Village of Eastlake and on the former Stronach Township property (which PCA has recently acquired), that limit the use of this property to park and recreational.
    -- Martin Marietta has place a deed restriction on their property that prohibits the drilling of water wells as a result of negotiations with PCA.
Response: The MDPH has no authority to forbid drilling of wells. The assessment has been revised to include the information on the deed restrictions in place.
  1. We agree with recommendation #3 that groundwater should continued to be monitored to detect any movement of contaminants from the plume to private or municipal wells. As you know, such monitoring is included in the EPA ROD.

    In September, 1994, PCA submitted a "Work Plan for Groundwater and Surface Water Monitoring" to the EPA and it was approved on October 17, 1994. It calls for annual sampling of 6 residential or municipal wells, and 15 [monitoring] wells in the plume or between the plume and private and municipal wells, for the parameters listed in the ROD. The first sampling will take place in June, 1995, and it will continue indefinitely -- perhaps for 60 years or more.

Response: Thank you for the information.
  1. We disagree with recommendation #4 that additional hydrogeological studies should be made to establish the structure of the geological formations underneath Manistee Lake and the extent of the groundwater plume, to determine whether any private or municipal wells might be reached by the contamination. We believe the geological formation and the extent of the plume have been well established as described in the RI report. The EPA agreed in their response to comment #6 on page 17 of the Responsiveness Summary of the ROD, saying, "The Agency believes that enough information has been gathered to make an appropriate decision about groundwater at the site which would be protective of human health and the environment."

    We certainly share your desire to insure the safety of private and municipal wells, but we believe this is being accomplished by the comprehensive groundwater monitoring program described in item #3.

    Additional facts further attest to the security of private and municipal wells.

    -- The groundwater modeling that was done for the RI report shows that the plume reached its maximum extent some time ago. Approximately ninety percent of the contaminant mass has already vented into Manistee Lake and the plume will only decrease in size and concentration over the next 60 years.
    -- Both modeling and other data from the RI indicate that Manistee Lake is an effective barrier to prevent contaminants from migrating to the west side of the Lake, and any private or municipal wells on the west side will not be impacted. Aquifer testing and modeling show that wells on the west side of Manistee Lake would have been impacted many years ago if the Lake were not an effective barrier.
    -- This is supported by test data on monitoring well #106 that has been taken since 1978. This well is on the south edge of the plume where it is the closest to private residences. It shows that the plume is retreating and not spreading.

    SUMMARY OF ARSENIC AND COLOR CONCENTRATIONS IN MONITORING WELL #106

    Date Arsenic
    (ppb)
    Color
    (APHA units)
    October 20, 1978
    1,300
    October 25, 1979
    700
    January 14, 1980 14 550
    September 7, 1983 < 10
    November 11, 1983 7.7 150
    October 7, 1987 ND (10.J) 32
    November 15, 1990 5.B 55

      Thus, arsenic has declined from 14 ppb in 1980 to 5 in 1990, and color declined from 1,300 APHA units in 1978 to 55 in 1990. This indicates that the edge of the plume is retreating.

      We expect the monitoring program will continue to show a gradually diminishing plume.


    Response: The plume is apparently diminishing because it is being washed into Manistee Lake and the source has been eliminated. There are other possible routes for the dispersal of the contaminant plume, and we do not agree that the available data is sufficient to eliminate them from consideration.
  1. We agree with the last sentence on the item #5 conclusion which states that: "There are many other potential sources for the contamination of the lake besides the PCA site and the PCA plant." That is one of the principal problems we have with the 1992 MDNR-contracted survey of Manistee Lake. We are enclosing a copy of our July 30, 1993 comments that we sent to the EPA on the draft DNR report.

    Conclusion #5 recommends additional sampling of sediments and surface water in Manistee Lake. We believe there is value in some continued monitoring of Lake conditions and we well be conducting continued lake water testing as described in the "Work Plan for Groundwater and Surface Water Monitoring". Lake water tests, together with bioaccumulation factors will track effects on fish. However, if recommendation #5 means that PCA should carry on the DNR-contractor study, we believe that this is not appropriate for the reasons stated in our June 30, 1993 comments.

    Response: The specific actions in response to Public Health Assessment recommendations for environmental actions such as monitoring are left to the environmental agencies to determine.

  2. We agree with recommendation #6 that the existing MDPH advisory on consumption of fish from Manistee Lake is sufficiently protective of human health.

    Response: Thank you for your support.

    Additional minor corrections or explanations:

    a. On page 2, 4th paragraph, wastewater flowed through lagoons #1 through #7 in numerical order, but lagoon #8 was an alternate destination to lagoons #4-5-6-7 for wastewater pumped out of lagoon #3.

    Response: The assessment has been revised to include this information.

    b. On page 2, last paragraph, lagoon #2 was not pumped out in the early 1970s because it was full of cellulose fiber sludge, not liquor that would seep into the ground.

    Response: The assessment has been revised to include this information.

    c. On page 3, first paragraph, approximately one-third of lagoon #3 was capped in 1994, not mid-August, 1993.

    Response: The assessment has been revised to include this information. The original statement was based on observations made during the MDPH visit to the site on August 10, 1993.

    d. On page 3, first paragraph, lagoon #2 now contains cellulose fiber sludge with a little rainwater, not the "black liquor" that was originally l agooned.

    Response: The assessment has been revised to include this information.

    e. On page 8, last paragraph, the 1 lb. of PCB in 1988 was a leak from a transformer into a moat that surrounded it. It was properly cleaned up and disposed of in accordance with all applicable regulations. No PCB got onto the ground at the Filer Mill. This also applies to page 9, second paragraph.

    Response: The assessment has been revised to include this information.

    Comments from the Michigan Department of Natural Resources site manager:

    Comment: Page 16, Potential Exposure Pathways, Surface Water:


    The last sentence states that dilution of groundwater as it discharges to surface water will likely reduce the concentrations of contaminants to below levels of concern. In our estimation, the data available to date is insufficient to be able to reach strong conclusions regarding the human health risks posed by groundwater discharging to surface water. We do know that the groundwater discharge poses significant ecological risks, as evidenced by the high toxicity of groundwater to Ceriodaphnia dubia, and by the abnormal distribution and numbers of pollution tolerant benthic organisms present in the area of plume discharge. It remains to be determined to what degree these ecological impacts signify human health impacts. Several data gaps remain: volatiles and semivolatiles in groundwater had very high detection limits; no surface water measurements have been made; very few of the tentatively identified compounds in the groundwater have been positively identified; the cause of the extreme groundwater toxicity is unknown; and no fish from Manistee Lake have been sampled to look for bioconcentration of site indicator compounds. These data gaps may be addressed by the site monitoring studies required in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Record of Decision.

    Response: The text has been revised to reflect these uncertainties.

    Comment: Page 22, Recommendations, number 6:


    The assessment states that the current MDPH advisory on consumption of fish from Manistee Lake is sufficiently protective of human health. We recommend awaiting the results of the post-ROD monitoring studies before making a final assessment of the risks posed by consumption of fish from the lake. In our meeting ... you expressed similar sentiments regarding the need for additional data. If your agency has specific recommendations regarding additional data necessary to move from an indeterminate to a more specific overall health assessment, please provide these suggestions to the EPA or us for possible inclusion in the monitoring plan for this site.

    Response: After internal review of the assessment and discussions with the MDNR, the text of the recommendation has been changed to provide for evaluation of new data on fish from the lake and reconsideration of the advisory.


  1. The company has since carried out this removal (10).
  2. Pica behavior is an abnormal consumption of non-food materials, such as soil, most often seen in children under 5 years of age.
  3. The estimates were computed by multiplying the national age- and sex-specific cancer incidence rates compiled by the SEER Program by the number of people in each age group living in the zip code area according to U.S. Census data and estimates. These products are then summed to give the total cancer rate estimate (28).
  4. Includes unincorporated villages
  5. Unincorporated village(s), not listed in Census Report.
  6. Based on U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Action Levels, except for mercury (U.S. FDA -- 1.0 ppm).
  7. Unidentified chemical similar to toxaphene
  8. Total DDT, DDD, and DDE.
  9. Includes cases diagnosed between 1985 and 1990 and reported to the Michigan Department of Public Health by December 31, 1991.
  10. Calculated by applying the age- and sex-specific incidence rates for Michigan to the age- and sex-specific ZIP code population estimates (28).
  11. Includes cases diagnosed between 1985 and 1990 and reported to the Michigan Department of Public Health by December 31, 1991.
  12. Calculated by applying the age- and sex-specific incidence rates for Michigan to the age- and sex-specific ZIP code population estimates (28).


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. #