• Home
• About ATSDR
• Press Room
• A-Z Index
• Glossary
• Employment
• Contact Us
• CDC

ATSDR en Español

Search:

Skip directly to: content | left navigation | search

---

Find a Publication

1. ATSDR > Public Health Assessments & Consultations

Figure 1. Location of Lower Ecorse River Dump Site

Figure 2. Site Location

Figure 3. Site Features

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.

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)

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)

WAD –    Weak Acid Dissociable cyanide

Comparison Value:    200 ppb (RMEG)

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

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)

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)

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

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

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.

NR –    Sample Type not reported

Reference 22, Table 14

Sample types and sample locations are not available.

Comparison Value: 40 ppm (RMEG)

LD_LO – 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

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.

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

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, 1825 Century Blvd, Atlanta, GA 30345
Contact CDC: 800-232-4636 / TTY: 888-232-6348 

Department of Health and Human Services