PB96-964108
EPA/ROD/R05-96/304
November 1996
EPA Superfund
Record of Decision:
Lower Ecorse Creek Dump,
Wyandotte, MI
7/17/1996
-------
-------
Declaration
Selected Remedial Alternative
for the
Lower Ecorse Creek Site
Wyandotte, Michigan
Site Name and Location
Lower Ecorse Creek Site
North Drive
Wyandotte, Michigan 48192
Statement of Basis and Purpose
This decision document presents the selected remedial action for the Lower Ecorse Creek site, in
Wyandotte, Michigan, which was chosen in accordance with the requirements of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), as amended by the
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA) and, to the extent practicable, the
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). This decision document
explains the factual and legal basis for selecting the remedy for this site. The information supporting
this remedial action decision is contained in the administrative record for this site. The State of
Michigan is expected to concur on the selected remedy.
Assessment of the site
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from this site, if not addressed by implementing
the response action selected in this Record of Decision (ROD), may present an imminent and
substantial endangerment to public health, welfare, or the environment.
Description of the Selected Remedy
The selected remedy is the final remedy for the site. The remedy addresses the threats posed by
principal threat wastes at the site. Principal threat wastes are defined as those source materials
considered to be highly toxic or highly mobile that generally cannot be reliably contained or would
present significant risk to human health or the environment should exposure occur.
The major components of the selected remedy include the following:
• Excavation and disposal of shallow and deep contaminated soil;
-------
• Resampling of locations identified in the Remedial Investigation which showed contaminant
levels above cleanup standards to determine the extent of contamination, and,
• Restoration of residential areas affected by excavation
Declaration of Statutory Determinations
The selected remedy is protective of human health and the environment, complies with federal and state
requirements that are legally applicable or relevant and appropriate to the remedial action, and is cost
effective. This remedy does not satisfy the statutory preference for remedies that reduce the toxicity,
mobility, or volume as a principal element because treatment of the principal threats of the Site was not
found to be practicable: it would not be cost effective to treat such a small volume of waste, and the
residential nature of the site precludes on-site treatment. However, if the waste is found to be
characteristically hazardous, it will be required to be treated prior to final disposal, and the remedy will
then satisfy the preference for remedies that employ treatment that reduces toxicity, mobility, or
volume as a principal element.
Because this remedy will not result in hazardous substances remaining on-site above health-based
levels, the five year review will not apply to this action.
William E' Muno, Directof Date
Superfund Division '
-------
State of Michigan: Letter of Concurrence
in
-------
-------
STATE OF MICHIGAN
JOHN ENGLER, Governor
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
HOLLISTER BUILDING, PO BOX 30473, LANSING Ml 48909-7973
RUSSELL J. HARDING, Director
August 26, 1996
Mr. William E. Muno, S-6J
Director, Superfund Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5
77 West Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, Illinois 60604-3590
Dear Mr. Muno:
The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ), on behalf of the state of Michigan,
has reviewed the proposed Record of Decision (ROD) dated June 19, 1996, for the Lower Ecorse
Creek Superfund site in Wayne County, Michigan. We are pleased to inform you that we concur
with the remedy outlined in the ROD.
This remedy meets state cleanup requirements, including the generic residential cleanup criteria,
pursuant to Part 201 of the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act, 1994 PA 451, as
amended (formerly known as the Michigan Environmental Response Act), and is expected to allow
for unrestricted use of the site upon completion of the excavation.
The MDEQ looks forward to the successful completion of the final remedy for the Lower Ecorse
Creek Superfund site. If you have any questions, please contact Mr. Brady Boyce, Superfund
Section, Environmental Response Division, at 517-373-4824, or you may contact me.
Sincerely
Russell J. Harding
Director
517-373-7917
cc:
Mr. Alan J. Howard, MDEQ
Mr. Ardon Toland, MDEQ
Dr. George Carpenter, MDEQ
Mr. Brady Boyce, MDEQ/Lower Ecorse Creek File (GU)
EQP0100*
(10/95)
-------
-------
Decision Summary for the Record of Decision
1.0 Site Name. Location, and Description
The Lower Ecorse Creek (LEG) Site is located in Section 17, Rl IE, T3SN in the City of Wyandotte,
Wayne County, Michigan (Figure 1). The City of Wyandotte is located about 6 miles southwest of the
City of Detroit. The site area includes six residential blocks centered around the 400 block of North
Drive. The Detroit and Toledo Railroad tracks are located east of the residential area. The Ecorse
River borders the site to the north and west. Directly north of the Ecorse River are the Downriver
Communities Combined Sewer Overflow Treatment Plant and the abandoned Great Lakes Steel
Foundry. Two lots located at 2303 Oak Street are also included as part of the site (Figure 2). The
Oak Street Site is located approximately 1.5 miles west-northwest of the North Drive properties and
the corner of 23rd Avenue and Oak.Street.
2.0 Site History and Enforcement Activities
Before 1930, land near the banks of the Ecorse River in Wyandotte was wetlands. A 1937 aerial
photograph shows the wetlands and a small brook that flowed to the river in the lots between Lots
23/24 (470/480 North Drive) and Lot 27 (446 North Drive). A 1951 photograph indicates that most
of the wetland area had been filled, and residential development along North Drive had occurred.
By 1957 the river had been rechanneled. The confluence of the north and south branches of the river
(also known as Upper and Lower Ecorse Creeks) was relocated from north of Lot 43 (304 North
Drive). Extensive fill is evident north of the Ecorse River. Modifications to the river in the early 1980s
involved straightening the south bank of the river at the rear of several residential properties in the area,
reportedly using construction debris as fill. Interviews with local residents indicate that the homes on
North Drive were built from about the 1920s through the 1980s.
In October 1989, the owner of the residence at 470/480 North Drive (Lots 23/24) reported to the
Wayne County Health Department (WCHD) that workers excavating to replace the driveway on their
property had encountered blue-colored soil. Preliminary tests by WCHD found high concentrations
of cyanide in the blue-colored soil. WCHD consulted with the Agency for Toxic Substances and
Disease Registry (ATSDR), and the agencies contacted U.S. EPA for further investigation. The U.S.
EPA found that a large area of soil in the site area was colored a deep blue. The primary constituent
of the coloring agent is ferric ferrocyanide. It is suspected that waste from a coal-gasification plant
deposited in the site area is the probable source for the blue material found on the site. Blue-colored
water was observed in the basement sump of the house at Lots 23/24. Blue stains also were seen on
the basement walls of this house.
The ATSDR issued health consultations on the site in November 1989, July 1990, November 1990,
and March 1991. In these consultations, ATSDR concluded that the site posed a significant health
-------
threat and recommended that residents avoid contact with contaminated areas until permanent
measures could be completed.
In December 1989, the U.S. EPA covered the areas of visible contamination at the site with six inches
of clean topsoil, to provide a temporary cover while further investigation went on and a permanent
1 solution was developed. After it was reported that the new soil was eroding away, additional soil was
added to the cover in August 1991. In January, 1993, the owner of the residence at Lots 23/24
reported that his basement had flooded with blue-colored water. U.S. EPA investigators found that
these waters contained high concentrations of cyanide.
On August 13, 1993, the ATSDR issued a Public Health Advisory for the North Drive (Lower Ecorse
Creek) site. The Advisory concluded that the levels of cyanide found in the soil at the site pose a
significant public health hazard and that anyone using shallow groundwater in the site area may be at
risk of exposure to cyanide contaminated water. The Advisory made the following recommendations:
1. Residents of the site area should be dissociated from the cyanide contamination;
2. Permanent remedial measures should be implemented as soon as possible;
3. The site should be considered for U.S. EPA's National Priorities List;
4. Residents in the area should be surveyed to locate any private wells in the site area;
5. Restrictions on digging in the site area should be considered; and,
6. The ATSDR Division of Health Studies should evaluate reports of adverse health
effects to determine the source of these effects.
In November 1993, the U. S. EPA began a time-critical removal action at the site. This action included
sampling 10 residential lots on North Drive for cyanide and other selected contaminants to delineate
the area of contamination. Based upon those sampling results contaminated soils from around the
residence at Lots 23/24 and Lots 91/92 were removed and disposed of off-site. The foundations at
both residences were also found to be deteriorated by the acidic nature of the waste. Repairs were
made by U.S. EPA to both foundations. At Lots 23/24 application of a chemical resistant sealant to
the basement walls and floors at the residence, and restoration of the surface drainage at the residence
were also required. A U.S. EPA contractor had completed the excavation of contaminated soil around
the residence and backfilled the area with clean soil by January 1994.
On January 19,1994, the Lower Ecorse Creek site was proposed for listing on the National Priorities
List (NPL) based upon the ATSDR Public Health Advisory. It became final on the NPL on May 31,
1994.
-------
In March 1995, an area of apparent cyanide contamination, similar to the material identified at North
Drive, was discovered at the residential lot at 2303 Oak Street in Wyandotte, Michigan. A time-critical
removal action was initiated and contaminated soil was excavated and disposed of and the site was
restored in May 1995. Because of the apparent similarity of the material to that found at the LEG site,
the Oak Street site was included in the remedial investigation and feasibility study for the LEG site.
On December 22, 1993 U.S. EPA issued General Notice letters to BASF Corporation and Michigan
Consolidated Gas Company, offering them the opportunity to undertake the PJ/FS for the site. Both
parties refused to undertake the work and on March 14, 1994 a fund-financed PJ/FS began. The final
RI report was released to the public in February 1996. The final FS report was released to the public
on April 15, 1996.
On November 29, 1995, ATSDR released a final Public Health Assessment for the site which stated
that the recommendations made in the 1993 Public Health Advisory concerning the site have been
addressed as follows:
1 Residents of the site area should be dissociated from the cyanide contamination-
US. EPA carried out an Emergency Removal Action in Late 1993 and early 1994 at
the site. Contaminated surface soil was removed and the walls and floor of the
basement of the house at the center of the contaminated area were sealed to keep
contaminated groundwater out;
2. Permanent remedial measures should be implemented as soon as possible - The
removal of contaminated soil in the 1993 U.S. EPA Emergency Removal Action is a
permanent remedial measure. Permanent measures to remedy the contamination of the
groundwater have not been implemented. Although groundwater is not used in the site
vicinity, residents and visitors may be exposed to the water through seepage into
basements in the site area;
3. The site should be considered for U.S. EPA's National Priorities List - U.S. EPA
placed the site on the NPL in January 1994;
4. Residents of the site area should be surveyed to locate private wells in the site
area - No private wells were identified in the immediate area surrounding the site. All
households are connected to municipally supplied water;
5 Restrictions on digging in the site area should be considered - U.S. EPA has
advised residents of the site area not to dig in their yards; and,
6 The ATSDR Division of Health Studies should evaluate reports of adverse health
effects to determine the source of these effects - ATSDR and U.S. EPA evaluations
of the health problems experienced by one young resident of the site area have not
-------
identified a connection between these effects and his potential exposure to the cyanide
compounds in the soil, air, and groundwater at his home.
3.0 Highlights of Community Participation
. The Responsiveness Summary in Section 12.0 discusses the involvement of the community during the
RI/FS and remedy selection process and shows that the public participation requirements of CERCLA
Sections 113(k)(2)(I-v) and 117 of CERCLA have been met at this site. The decision is based on the
Administrative Record.
4.0 Scope and Role of Operable Unit or Response Action Within Site Strategy
This Record of Decision (ROD) addresses the final remedy for the site. The threats posed by this site
to human health and the environment are primarily from cyanide contaminated soil. Other
contaminants are present, e.g. SVOC's, however, they do not pose an unacceptable risk.
The contaminated soil is the source materials for contamination at the site and are classified as principal
threat waste. Principal threat wastes are considered to be those source materials that are highly toxic
or highly mobile that generally cannot be reliably contained or would present significant risk to human
health or the environment should exposure occur.
4.1 Site Physical Characteristics
4.1.1 Topography
The LEG site is located in a former wetland area of the Ecorse River. The site consists of a developed
residential area consisting of flat lying residential lots. Development of the residential area required
filling in the former wetlands and later straightening the south bank of the Ecorse River.
4.1.2 Geology .
Site geology primarily consists of fill soils and wetland and native fluvial deposits from the Ecorse
River overlying lacustrine clays. Fill was historically used to develop wetland areas into a residential
area along North Drive. The fill consists of construction debris, natural clay fill materials, and waste
materials.
Native soils beneath the fill consist of gray to orange brown, finely layered, fine to very fine sand, silt,
and clay. Native surficial soils appear to have been reworked, possibly during the construction of the
residences.
-------
4.1.3 Hydrology
The site is bounded on the north and west by the Ecorse River. The Ecorse River flows to the east
and discharges into the Detroit River about 200 feet from the eastern site boundary. The area north
of North Drive lies in the river's designated 100-year floodplain (see Figure 3).
Runoff from the northern portions of the residential lots on North Drive flows into the Ecorse
River. The runoff from the remaining residential lots flows into the streets and storm sewers. The
storm sewers carry the runoff to the local treatment plant, from where it is discharged into the
river.
4.1.4 Hydrogeology
Whether groundwater is present in clay rich terrain such as in eastern Wayne County depends on
the occurrence of glaciofluvial deposits. Limited quantities of groundwater may be found in these
permeable localized sand and gravel bodies that are buried within the lake plain deposits. The
frequency and occurrence of these dicontinuous sand and gravel bodies decreases toward the
Detroit River (Mozola 1969).
Groundwater was not detected in most of the borings completed throughout the study area.
Groundwater occurred in the borings only in thin permeable zones consisting of coarse fill debris
and soft wetland soils. Primarily these localized isolated zones occurred within the fill near the
river.
Deep borings drilled outside of fill areas for stratigraphic profiling indicated moist to wet soils only
in wetland soils. This perched water yielded very small quantities of water and did not prove to be
laterally extensive.
5.0 Summary of RI Findings and Previous Investigation Results
The U.S. EPA assigned CH2M HILL to perform an RI for the LEG and Oak Street sites. CH2M
HELL developed and implemented an investigative approach that evaluated the nature and extent of
contaminants in site soils, perched groundwater, surface water and sediment, and residential air,
sump water, and sump sediment. Field activities were conducted from November 14 to December
22, 1994. Only surface and subsurface soils were investigated at the Oak Street properties. The
findings of the RI conducted in the residential areas and those in the previous investigation area are
summarized below. Tables 1 through 29 summarize the analytical results for each of the media
tested. The area of previous investigation, is defined as those lots sampled during the removal
action at this site (see Figure 1).
-------
5.1 Nature and Extent of Contamination
5.1.1 LEG Soils
. Background soil samples were collected in the residential areas adjacent to the LEG site and
background concentrations were calculated according the MDEQ guidance document, Verification
of Soil Remediation, 1994 (the mean plus 3 standard deviations). In the discussion, surface soils
are assumed to be from 0 to 2-feet below ground surface and subsurface soils from 2 to
approximately 17 feet below ground surface. This is consistent with the distinctions made between
surface and subsurface soils to calculate risks in the baseline risk assessment.
In the area of the previous investigation, cyanide was detected in 73 percent of the surface soils at a
maximum reported concentration of 1,730 mg/kg. Cyanide was also detected in the subsurface
soils in most of the samples collected during the RI from the area of previous investigation at a
maximum concentration of 32,300 mg/kg at a depth of 4 to 6 feet. The maximum cyanide
concentration in the soil samples collected from the area outside the previous investigation area was
4.0 mg/kg, measured in a surface soil sample.
Antimony, barium, chromium, copper, iron, lead, manganese, and zinc were the metals detected
most frequently at concentrations greater than background in both surface and subsurface soils at
the site. Metals were detected above background most frequently in the fill area adjacent to the
Ecorse River.
As expected when analyzing for volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in a medium in close
proximity to the open atmosphere, the majority of surface soils did not contain any detectable
VOCs. Methylene chloride and acetone were the VOCs detected most frequently in surface soils at
the site. Methylene chloride was detected at a maximum concentration of 19 ug/kg, and acetone
was detected at a maximum concentration of 76 ug/kg,. Methylene chloride, acetone, carbon
disulfide, and 2-butanone were the VOCs detected in the subsurface soils with the greatest
frequency at maximum concentrations of 260; 1,300; 65,000 and 196 ug/kg, respectively.
Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PNAs) were detected across the site in both surface and
subsurface soils. The maximum concentration of an individual PNA measured was 150,000 ug/kg
for pyrene. PNAs were detected in the highest concentrations in the area of previous investigation
and the northeast lot. Dioxin was found in soils at 10 site locations, primarily in the
playground/park area at a maximum concentration of 16.0 ng/g. Two surface soil and two
subsurface soil samples contained polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). The maximum PCB
concentration was 250 ug/kg in a subsurface soil sample from the playground/park area.
Figure 4 shows the sampling locations where contaminants exceeded MDEQ cleanup standards.
-------
5.1.2 Oak Street Site
At the Oak Street site, cyanide was detected in subsurface soils at concentrations ranging from 44.1
to 7,438 mg/kg. The highest concentrations were found in the west area, adjacent to the asphalt
parking lot. PAHs and other metals, similar to the ones detected at the North Drive area were also
detected at the Oak Street Site.
5.1.3 Perched Groundwater
Low concentrations of VOCs and semivolatile organic compounds (SVOCs) (1 to 3 fig/kg) were
detected in one perched groundwater sample from the playground/park area. Metals detected in
the perched groundwater samples did not exceed background levels.
5.1.4 Surface Water and Sediment
Surface water and sediment samples were collected both upstream and adjacent to the Site. VOCs
(1 to 15|ig/L) were detected in four surface water samples. No SVOCs were detected in the
surface water samples. Several inorganic analytes, including arsenic, barium, chromium, copper,
lead, cyanide, zinc, and cadmium, were found in surface water samples. Low concentrations of
acetone (less than 92 ng/kg) and xylene (less than 10 (ig/kg) were identified in four sediment
samples. SVOCs (19,760 |ag/kg total SVOCs) were detected at SD-02. Several metals, including
cyanide, lead, and zinc, were detected in sediment at concentrations that exceed background
sediment levels.
5.1.5 Residential Air, Sump Water, and Sump Sediment
No hydrogen cyanide was detected in the six air samples collected in the residential basements.
Low concentrations of carbon disulfide and acetone were detected in one sump water sample (0.6
|ig/L) and one sump sediment sample (14 fig/kg), respectively. Low concentrations of PNAs,
phthalates, and phenols were detected in two sump water samples. Inorganic analytes were
detected in both sump water and sediment samples, with the highest concentrations found in the
sample collected from the basement sump of the residence in the area of previous investigation.
5.1.6 Contaminant Fate and Transport
In general, contaminants in surface and subsurface soils have been identified during the RI in the
highest concentrations in the area of previous investigation and in pockets of contaminated fill
along the Ecorse River including the playground/park area, the northeast lot, and the north bank
-------
area (see Figure 1). The primary contaminant release and transport mechanisms from the LEG site
consist of:
Erosion, transport, and deposition of contaminated dust by wind
Leaching of dissolved contaminants into perched groundwater and transport
in groundwater to discharge areas such as the Ecorse River or potentially
into residential basements by seepage through basement walls
Surface runoff of dissolved contaminants to the Ecorse River or by soil
erosion and particulate transport in surface water
Volatilization of VOCs from the soil and migration offsite through the
atmosphere, and possibly into basements.
The main contaminants at the site, including PNAs, cyanide in the form of ferric ferrocyanide, and
metals, tend to be persistent in the environment because they (PNAs) are slow to degrade and have
low mobility. Contaminants at the site are not expected to migrate a great distance from the source
areas. Because there does not appear to be continuous groundwater unit at the site and because the
perched groundwater identified is of limited aerial extent and depth, the groundwater pathway for
contaminant migration is not considered to be significant. The primary migration pathways at the
site are through the air and surface water run-off.
6.0 Risk Assessment
Pursuant to the National Contingency Plan (NCP) a baseline risk assessment was performed using
analytical data generated during the RI and the removal project. The baseline risk assessment
assumes no corrective action will take place and that no site-use restrictions or institutional controls
such as fencing, groundwater use restrictions or construction restrictions will be imposed.
However, for the future site scenarios, present action at the site and current plans for development
are considered. The risk assessment determines actual or potential carcinogenic risks and/or toxic
effects the chemical contaminants at the site pose under current and future land use assumptions
using a four step process. The four step process includes: contaminant identification, health effects
assessment, exposure assessment and risk assessment. Table 30 summarizes the results of the risk
assessment.
6.1 Contaminant Identification
During the RI several chemicals in different media were detected and a list of "chemicals of
potential concern" was developed using the following criteria:
-------
Any chemical detected at least once in any on-site soil, groundwater, surface
water, or sediment sample was considered to be a possible chemical of
concern;
Several chemicals known to be essential for human nutrition were
eliminated. These chemicals were present at levels that are considered non-
toxic.
Compounds that were detected at concentrations above the calculated
background concentrations were retained as compounds of concern.
According to RAGS Part A, most organic compounds found at remediation
sites are not naturally-occurring, and thus cannot be eliminated from the
quantitative assessment. The organic compounds detected were retained as
compounds of concern.
The chemicals of potential concern are listed in Table 31.
6.2 Human Health Effects
The health effects for the contaminants of concern may be found in the RI report.
6.3 Exposure Assessment
The baseline risk assessment examined potential pathways of concern to human health
under both current and future land-use scenarios for the immediate property and the
surrounding area. The exposure scenarios which were evaluated in the baseline risk
assessment were based on the residential land use that currently exists in the study area. It
was also assumed also that the area would remain residential in the future. The residential
land use scenario provided a conservative estimate of intakes, and therefore, risks.
The following pathways were selected for detailed evaluation under both the current and
future land-use conditions:
• Residential adult and child exposure to surface and subsurface soil
• Residential adult and child exposure to surface water and sediment in the Ecorse River
• Adult exposure to sump water and sump sediment
The current and future site uses are expected to be residential. Exposure to soil was
evaluated separately for the residential area and the playground/park area because the
exposure assumptions for each of these areas were different. In addition, the risk to
-------
residents in the residential area was also evaluated separately for the area of previous
investigation (for cyanide) and the rest of the residential area. Potential human health
impacts from exposure to surface soil, subsurface soil, surface water and sediments, and
sump water and sediments are presented below.
6.4 Risk Characterization
For each potential human receptor, site-specific contaminants from all of the relevant routes
of exposure were evaluated. Both non-carcinogenic and carcinogenic health effects were
estimated.
Reference doses (RfDs) have been developed by U.S.EPA as a means of identifying the
potential for adverse health effects from exposure to chemicals that typically exhibit non-
carcinogenic effects. RfDs, which are expressed in units of mg/kg-day, are estimates of
average daily exposure levels for humans, including sensitive individuals. Estimated intakes
of chemicals from environmental media (e.g., the amount of chemical ingested from
contaminated drinking water) can be compared to the RfD. RfDs are derived from human
epidemiological studies or animal studies to which uncertainty factors have been applied
(e.g., to account for the use of animal data to predict effects on humans). These uncertainty
factors help ensure that the RfDs will not underestimate the potential for adverse non-
carcinogenic effects to occur.
The Hazard Index (HI), an expression of non-carcinogenic toxic effects, measures whether
a person is being exposed to adverse levels of non-carcinogens. The HI provides a useful
reference point for gauging the potential significance of multiple contaminant exposures
within a single medium or across multiple media. The HI for non-carcinogenic health risks
is the sum of all contaminants for a given scenario. Any Hazard Index value greater than
1.0 suggests that a non-carcinogen potentially presents an unacceptable health risk.
Cancer potency factors (CPFs) have been developed by EPA's Carcinogenic Assessment
Group for estimating excess lifetime cancer risks associated with exposure to potentially
carcinogenic chemicals. CPFs, which are expressed in units of (mg/kg-day)"1, are multiplied
by the estimated intake of a potential carcinogen, in mg/kg-day, to provide an upper-bound
estimate of the excess lifetime cancer risk associated with exposure at that intake level. The
term "upper bound" reflects the conservative estimate of the risks calculated from the CPF.
Use of this approach makes underestimation of the actual cancer risk highly unlikely.
Cancer potency factors are derived from the results of human epidemiological studies or
chronic animal bioassay. The excess lifetime cancer risks are the sum of all excess cancer
lifetime risks for all contaminants for a given scenario determined by multiplying the intake
level by the cancer potency factor for each contaminant of concern.
10
-------
6.4.1 Surface Soils
Potential inadvertent ingestion and dermal absorption of contaminants detected in surface
soils in the residential area resulted in estimated potential excess lifetime cancer risks of 9 x
10~6 for reasonable maximum exposure (RME) adults and 1 x 10"5 for RME children. The
central tendencies exposure (CTE) cancer risk were estimated at 2 x 10"7 for adults and 1 x
10"6 for children. These cancer risks were due primarily to carcinogenic PNAs (Class B2
carcinogen) detected in residential area surface soils. Inhalation of VOCs and particulates
resulted in estimated potential lifetime cancer risks of less than 1x10"* for both adults and
children. Hazard indexes (His) due to exposure to surface soils for adults and children were
less than 1.
The His for both adults and children with exposure to cyanide-containing surface soils from
the area of previous investigation were less than 1. Because the adult and child RME His
were less than 1, the CTE scenario was not evaluated.
Potential inadvertent ingestion of and dermal contact with contaminants detected in surface
soil samples from the playground/park area resulted in estimated potential excess lifetime
cancer risks of 1 x 10~s for RME adults and 3 x 10'5 for RME children. The estimated
potential excess lifetime cancer risk for CTE adults was 6 x 10"7, and the excess lifetime
cancer risk for CTE children was 5 x 10"6. These cancer risks estimates were due primarily
to the presence of arsenic (Class A carcinogen) in playground/park surface soils.
Inadvertent ingestion of surface soils resulted in potential excess lifetime cancer risks of 6 x
10"6 for RME adults and 1 x 10'5 for RME children; the excess lifetime cancer risk estimated
for CTEs due to ingestion of soil was 4 x 10"7 for the adult, and 5 x 10"6 for the child. The
majority of this risk was due to the presence of arsenic and PNAs. Dermal absorption of
surface soil contaminants from the playground/park area also contributed substantially to
the estimated cancer risks, with adult dermal exposure resulting in a cancer risk of 5 x 10"6
(RME) and child dermal exposure resulting in a cancer risk of 2 x 10"5 (RME). The cancer
risk estimated for CTEs due to dermal contact was 2 x 10"7 for the adult and 2 x 10"7 for the
child. Arsenic, PCBs, and PNAs in playground/park surface soils were the primary
carcinogens for these risk estimates. Inhalation of surface soil contaminants resulted in
estimated potential lifetime cancer risks well below 1 x 10"6. His associated with exposure
to playground/park surface soils were less than 1 for adults and children.
6.4.2 Subsurface Soils
Future potential inadvertent ingestion of contaminants detected in residential area
subsurface soils resulted in estimated potential excess lifetime cancer risks of 5 x 10"6 for
RME adults and 1 x 10'5 for RME children. The estimated potential excess lifetime cancer
risk for CTE adults was 2 x 10"7, and the estimated potential excess lifetime cancer risk for
CTE children was 4 x 10"6. The cancer risk was due to the presence of PNAs. This risk
11
-------
was caused by the ingestion of contaminated subsurface soils; the risk due to inhalation of
contaminated subsurface soils was below 1 x 10"6. Dermal risks for PNAs, although not
calculated, should be assumed to be of the same order of magnitude as those calculated for
ingestion. His for subsurface soil exposures were less than 1 for adults and children.
The presence of cyanide at a concentration of 32,300 mg/kg in subsurface soils in the area
of previous investigation (hot-spot) resulted in an HI estimate greater than 1 for RME
children, indicating the potential for noncancer adverse health impacts. The RME HI was
due to ingestion of contaminated subsurface soils in this area (2.1 for children), with dermal
exposure contributing a much smaller portion (0.2'for children). The HI for RME adults
was less than 1. The CTE adult and child His were less than 1.
6.4.3 Surface Water and Sediment
Exposure to surface water and sediments resulted in estimated potential excess lifetime
cancer risks below 1 x 10"6; His associated with ingestion and dermal exposures were less
than 1. Because RME risks were below 1 x 10"6 (and His were less than 1), the CTE
scenario was not evaluated.
6.4.4 Sump Water and Sediments
Dermal contact with sump water by adults resulted in an estimated potential excess lifetime
cancer risk below 1 x 10"6, as did contact with sump sediments. The His associated with
dermal contact with sump water and sump sediments were both less than 1. Because RME
risks were below 1 x 10"6 (and His were less than 1), the CTE scenario was not evaluated
In an assesement of the risks to household pets from ingestion of sump water there were no
unacceptable risks found. For a full explanation of the household pet risk evaluation please
see the June 13, 1996, memorandum from CH2M Hill, which is in the administrative record.
The risk to a household cat was evaluated assuming both a one year and 14 year exposure
duration with a consumption of 0.3 liter/day. A comparison of the intake and the oral
toxicity value for each chemical of concern showed no unacceptable risk.
6.4.5 Acidic and Basic Soils
Due to the nature of soils in the area, a qualitative evaluation of the risks due to exposure to
acidic or basic soils was also conducted. Acidic or basic soils at the site are found at the
site in the areas of high cyanide concentrations. Exposure to acids can result in severe skin
burns, usually with a dry crust from coagulation necrosis. Alkalies (bases) produce softer
burns, which can be extremely painful. Acid burns to the eye are a dual function of the pH
and the capacity of the acid's anion to combine with ocular proteins (in addition to other
aspects, such as the defatting action by sulfuric acid and sulfur dioxide). The effects noted
above for exposure to acidic or basic solutions may or may not occur upon exposure to
12
-------
soils. The effects may vary in severity depending on the matrix of the acid or base (solution
vs. soil) and the physical condition of the skin or eye (thickness, presence of cuts or
abrasions, etc.). Aside from the acidic or basic nature of soil, the physical abrasive action of
soils would damage the skin or the eyes. The chemical action of acidic or basic soils is
likely to have a greater impact on physical structures, such as foundations, due to their
continuous and long-term contact with the soils and weathering effects (freeze-thaw).
6.4.6 Ecological Risk Assessment (ERA)
The purpose of the ERA is to evaluate the potential adverse ecological effects that may be
or are occurring as a result of exposure to site-related stressors at the LEG site. The ERA
evaluates potential threats to ecological receptors in the absence of any remedial actions.
6.4.6.1 Aquatic Communities
The greatest risk posed by contaminants associated with the LEG Site appears to be from
contaminants within sediments of Lower Ecorse Creek. However, the contaminants
associated with the site and found in the sediments were also detected upstream from the
site indicating that the site is not the source of the contamination problem in the creek. The
habitat associated with the creek itself already precludes the existence of a diverse and
sustainable population of aquatic organisms. Even though the habitat quality is
questionable, exposure and risk to aquatic organisms was evaluated by comparing exposure
dose estimates to National Ambient Water Quality Criteria (NAWQC)standards or
literature-based benchmark value. Aluminum, barium, lead, iron, anthracene, and
ben2o(a)anthracene are present and are of the greatest concern to aquatic organisms based
on the dose estimate comparisons. The NAWQC and sediment benchmark values were
considered conservative. Therefore, the actual affect on the aquatic ecosystem may not be
as great as indicated by the dose estimate comparisons.
6.4.6.2 Terrestrial Communities
The contaminants associated with surface soils that pose a potential threat to terrestrial
communities associated with the LEG Site were lead and cyanide. Even though the
residential setting does not support a diverse community structure, the level of cyanide in
the soil may be of significant threat to birds such as robins. It should be noted here that
several COCs were not evaluated relative to effects on terrestrial communities because there
is limited toxicological information available.
6.5 Rationale for Further Action
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from this site, if not addressed by
implementation of the response action selected by this ROD, may present an imminent and
substantial endangerment to the public health, welfare or the environment. Therefore, based
13
-------
upon the findings of the RI report and the discussion above, a Feasibility Study (FS) was
performed to focus the development of alternatives to address the threats at the site. The
FS report documents the evaluation of the magnitude of the site risks, site-specific
applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements, and the requirements of CERCLA and
the NCP in the derivation of remedial alternatives for the LEG site.
7.0 Description of Alternatives
Three alternatives for the remediation of soils at the LEG site were developed including a no action
alternative. These alternatives include all the remedial technologies remaining after screening that
are applicable to inorganic and SVOC contamination. The alternatives are:
Alternative 1—No action
Alternative 2—Excavation and disposal of shallow contaminated soil and
implementation of institutional controls for areas of deep contaminated soil
Alternative 3—Excavation and offsite treatment and disposal of shallow and deep
contaminated soil
7.1 Alternative 1—No Action
Capital Cost:
Annual Operation and Maintenance Cost
Present Worth
Time to Implement
None
None
None
None
The no action alternative is required by the NCP. Its purpose is to allow comparison of alternatives
to the conditions that currently exist and that would exist in the future.
Under Alternative 1 there would be no remediation of the contaminated soils. There would be no
ongoing site security or installation of a site fence. No restrictions would be placed on sale of the
property or future development of the site.
7.2 Alternative 2—Excavation and Disposal of Shallow Contaminated Soils and Institutional
Controls for Deep Contaminated Soils
Capital Cost
Operation and Maintenance Cost
Present Worth
Time to Implement
The major components of Alternative 2 are:
$894,150
None
$894,150
6 months from start of construction
14
-------
• Excavation of shallow contaminated soil
• Disposal of shallow contaminated soil
• Implementation of institutional controls for deep contaminated soil
• Restoration of residential areas
' The objective of Alternative 2 is to protect human health and the environment from unacceptable
risk associated with direct contact with the soils through the use of a combination of excavation,
disposal, and deed restrictions.
At the location where contaminated soils were detected in the 0 - 2 foot depth range, those
locations would be excavated to 1 foot below the level of contaminated soil using standard
excavation equipment such as backhoes, front-end loaders, and bulldozers. Since the soils to be
excavated are located on the property of private residences, small excavation equipment and tools
for hand digging will also be required. Trucks used for loading of the excavated soils would be
direct-loaded, and stockpiling of soil would be minimized. Excavation would proceed downward
and outward from the centers of the known areas of contamination.
Assuming an area of 10 feet by 10 feet and a depth of 2 foot deeper than the level of contamination,
the amount of inorganic- and SVOC-contaminated shallow soil to be excavated and disposed of
offsite at a landfill is estimated to be 298 cubic yards. This total is an estimate and is subject to
increase if confirmatory sampling indicates that additional soil removal is necessary.
Further sampling will be performed in areas that have been designated for remediation and which
are located on private property and appear to be isolated areas of contamination. This additional
sampling will confirm the RI sampling results and delineate areas of contaminated soil so that
property owners will know if excavation is required and, if so, how much of their property will be
impacted by excavation before remedial activities on their property begin.
7.3 Alternative 3—Excavation and Disposal of Shallow and Deep Soil
Capital Cost $645,800
Annual Operation and Maintenance Cost None
Present Worth $645,800
Time to Implement 3 months from start of construction
The major components of Alternative 3 are:
- Delineation of isolated contaminated soil on private property
- Excavation of shallow and deep contaminated soil
- Disposal of shallow and deep contaminated soil
- Restoration of residential areas
Alternative 3 would eliminate the need for institutional controls because all contaminated soils with
concentrations of COCs above the remedial goals established for the site, and the unacceptable
health risks associated with them, would be removed from the site. Shallow and deep contaminated
15
-------
soils would be removed using procedures discussed for Alternative 2. At locations where RI data
indicate that only the deep soils are contaminated, soils above the zone of contamination would be
stockpiled in a clean area to be used later as backfill after confirmatory sampling is completed.
Contaminated soil would be excavated. The amount of inorganic- and SVOC-contaminated soil to
be excavated and disposed of orfsite at a landfill is estimated to be 906 cubic yards. The total is
an estimate; confirmatory sampling will be necessary to determine the actual extent of
contamination.
Further sampling will be performed in areas that have been designated for remediation and which
are located on private property and appear to be isolated areas of contamination. This additional
sampling will confirm the RI sampling results and delinate areas of contaminated soil so that
property owners will know if excavation is required and, if so, how much of their property will be
impacted by excavation before remedial activities on their property begin.
8.0 Summary of Comparative Analysis of Alternatives
The relative performance of each remedial alternative was evaluated in the FS and below using the
nine criteria set forth in Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR) Section 300.430 of
the NCP. An alternative providing the "best balance" of trade-offs with respect to the nine criteria
is determined from this evaluation.
8.1 Threshold Criteria
The following two threshold criteria, overall protection of human health and the environment, and
compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs) are criteria that
must be met in order for an alternative to be selected.
8.1.1 Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
Overall protection of human health and the environment addresses whether a remedy
eliminates, reduces, or controls threats to human health and to the environment
Alternative 1, no action, does not provide overall protection to human health and the
environment. Direct contact with contaminated soils can still occur.
Alternatives 2 and 3 protect human health and the environment by removing or treating
contaminated soil from the LEC and Oak Street sites. These alternatives, however, increase
short-term risks onsite during the excavation and consolidation of soil and the
protectiveness offsite would rely on the integrity of the offsite landfill.
Alternative 3 protects human health and the environment by removing and treating
contaminated soils. Alternative 2 also protects human health and the environment to some
16
-------
degree by removal of shallow contaminated soil; however, this alternative provides no
protection from the deep soils with concentrations exceeding cleanup standards, therefore,
institutional controls would be required. The protectiveness provided by the offsite disposal
facility would rely on the effectiveness of the stabilization/solidification process. Short-term
risks are elevated onsite for workers and the community during the excavation and
treatment of contaminated soils.
Alternatives 2 and 3 are both protective of human health and the environment because
direct exposure from contaminated soil would be prevented as long as exposure to deep
contaminated soil is prevented under Alternative 2.
8.1.2 Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
Alternative 1 does not comply with federal or state promulgated standards such as those
specified in Michigan Act 451, Part 201. Alternative 2 would not reduce the risks from the
deep contaminated soils that were identified in the risk assessment and the release and
transport mechanisms would remain unchanged. Alternative 3 would reduce site-related
risks and would comply with all ARARs if the required permits are obtained.
8.2 Primary Balancing Criteria
8.2.1 Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence
This criterion refers to the expected residual risk and the ability of an alternative to maintain
reliable protection of human health and the environment over time once clean up levels have
been met.
Alternative 1, no action, would not provide long-term effectiveness. Exposure and risks
resulting from current conditions at the site would continue.
Alternatives 2 and 3 provide long-term effectiveness at the site by permanently removing or
treating contaminated soils that are above cleanup standards. Alternative 2 does not
provide as much long-term protectiveness because the deep contaminated soils would still
be in place. The SVOC COCs at the LEG site are, however, relatively immobile. The
contaminated soil disposed of offsite would be controlled by measures taken at the disposal
facilities. With present regulations on designing, constructing, and operating disposal
facilities, long-term effectiveness would be expected.
Alternatives 2 and 3 are protective, however, Alternative 3 is more protective because both
the shallow and deep soil are removed and additionally controlled by the
stabilization/solidification process. Inorganic chemicals can be stabilized in the long term
because they are chemically stabilized within the cement and the SVOCs are physically
solidified within the mass of concrete, reducing the mobility of the SVOCs.
17
-------
Although soils contaminated with SVOCs and inorganic chemicals would remain onsite in
Alternative 2, the potential for direct exposure would be reduced by the enforcement of
deed restrictions. These are meant to prevent activities that involve exposure of the deep
contaminated soils.
8.2.2 Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume through Treatment
In Alternative 1, no action, toxicity and volume of the contaminants would not change.
While the mobility of the COCs will not change, they may be transported to uncontaminated
areas by water erosion of the soil and infiltration.
In Alternatives 2 and 3, while there are no reductions in the toxicity and mobility of the
COCs, risks to the community associated with the toxicity and mobility of the COCs are
reduced when the contaminated material is disposed of or treated offsite. The offsite
disposal or treatment facility would have measures in place to control the toxicity and
mobility of the COCs brought from the site. Both Alternatives 2 and 3 are effective at
reducing migration through the stabilization/solidification of excavated soils but would
increase the volume of the excavated soil by approximately 120 percent by the addition of
the stabilizing material. This increase in the volume of soil would not impact the site,
however, since the stabilization/solidification process would be conducted offsite at the
disposal facility.
8.2.3 Short-Term Effectiveness
Under Alternative 1, there would be no additional short-term risk to the community.
Alternatives 2 and 3 create greater short-term risks to the community and onsite workers
due to the excavation and disposal/treatment of contaminated soils. Alternative 2 will not
create as much risk since only the shallow contaminated soil will be removed. Short-term
risks can be reduced through common construction practices, such as using Level D
personal protection. Compared to no action, Alternatives 2 and 3 create some potential for
direct contact by residents living in the houses in the immediate vicinity of the work, with
contaminated soil during excavation and disposal.
Some additional considerations are the noise generated and typical risks associated with the
heavy equipment onsite. Heavy traffic caused by vehicles used for excavation and trucks
for soil disposal and site restoration will also be associated with all Alternatives, except for
the no action alternative. Added risks are associated with this traffic since it will be in the
midst of a residential area. RAs associated with Alternative 3 can be performed within 3
months of the start of construction; Alternative 2 may take longer since there may be time
delays in obtaining deed restrictions for the individual residential properties.
18
-------
8.2.4 Implementability
This criterion addresses the technical and administrative feasibility of implementing an
alternative, and the availability of various services and materials required for it
implementation.
The technical feasibility of all alternatives is well understood. The technologies associated
with Alternatives 2 and 3 are straightforward and usually easy to implement, however,
because the areas to be excavated are located in a residential area, implementation becomes
complicated. Applying deed restrictions for Alternative 2 may be administratively difficult to
implement.
Alternatives 2 and 3 are both technically feasible.
8.2.5 Cost
This criterion compares the capital, operation and maintenance (O&M), and present worth
costs for implementing the alternatives at the site. Table 32 shows the cost summary.
Table 32
Alternative Cost Summary
Alternative 1
Alternative 2
Alternative 3
Capital Cost
None
$894,150
$645,800
O&M Cost
None
None
None
Present Worth
None
$894,150
$645,800
8.3 Modifying Criteria
8.3.1 State Acceptance
State acceptance indicates whether, based on its review of the RI/FS, and Proposed Plan,
the State concurs with, opposes, or has no comment on the preferred alternative.
The State of Michigan has assisted in the development and review of the Administrative
Record. The State's position regarding the selected alternative will be presented in a formal
statement of concurrence, if appropriate. The State is expected to concur on the remedy.
19
-------
8.3.2 Community Acceptance
The specific public comments received and U.S. EPA's responses are outlined in the
attached Responsiveness Summary.
9.0 The Selected Remedy
Based upon considerations of the requirements of CERCLA, the NCP, and balancing of the nine
criteria, the U.S. EPA has determined that Alternative 3, Excavation and Disposal of Shallow and
Deep Contaminated Soil, is the most appropriate remedy for the site. The components of the
selected remedy are described below.
The major components of the selected remedy are:
Delineation of isolated areas of contaminated soil on residential properties
Excavation of shallow and deep contaminated soil
Off-site disposal of shallow and deep contaminated soil
Restoration of properties affected by the remediation
9.1 Delineation of Isolated Contaminated Soil on Private Property
Further sampling will be performed in areas that have been designated for remediation, are located
on private property and appear to be isolated areas of contamination. This additional sampling will
confirm the RI sampling results and delineate areas of contaminated soilso that property owners
will know if excavation is required and, if so, how much of their property will be impacted by
excavation before remedial activities on their property begin.
9.2 Excavation of Contaminated Soil
Shallow and deep soils, with contaminants above the cleanup standards set forth in Table 33 would
be excavated and disposed of off-site at an approved disposal facility. At locations where RI data
indicate that only the deep soils are contaminated, soils above the zone of contamination would be
stockpiled in a clean area to be used later as backfill after confirmatory sampling is completed.
Contaminated soil would be excavated.
20
-------
Upon removal of the contaminated soil, soil samples would be collected from the bottom and
perimeter of the excavation to verify that soils with concentration levels above the PRGs have been
removed. Following excavation, the hole would be backfilled using uncontaminated soil.
9.3 Disposal at a Landfill
The excavated soil contaminated above the cleanup standards would be transported to a Subtitle D
landfill for disposal. Testing for RCRA hazardous waste characteristics would be performed, and if
necessary, the soil would be stabilized off-site to meet the disposal facility's requirements prior to
landfilling.
9.4 Restoration of Residential Areas
Excavation around private residences could require removal of sidewalks, lawns and other
vegetation. Areas affected by the remediation will be restored, as close as practicable to their
existing condition (including trees and shrubs).
10.0 Statutory Determinations
U.S. EPA's primary responsibility at Superfund Sites is to undertake remedial actions that protect
human health and the environment. Section 121 of CERCLA has established several statutory
requirements and preferences. These include the requirement that the selected remedy, when
completed, must comply with all applicable, relevant and appropriate requirements ("ARARs") of
Federal and State environmental laws, unless the invocation of a waiver is justified. The selected
remedy must also provide overall effectiveness appropriate to its costs, and use permanent
solutions and alternative treatment technologies, or resource recovery technologies, to the
maximum extent practicable. Finally, the statute establishes a preference for remedies which
employ treatment that significantly reduces the toxicity, mobility or volume of contaminants.
10.1 Protection of Human Health and the Environment
Implementation of the selected remedy will protect human health and the environment by reducing
the risk of exposure to hazardous substances present in surface soils and subsurface soils at the
Site. Excavation and off-site disposal of the contaminated soil will minimize the direct contact risk
of exposure to hazardous substances present in soil at the Site. Additionally, it will minimize the
risk of drainage waters carrying the contaminants, via the drainage systems, or cracks in the
foundations into the basements of the homes on site. It will also minimize the possibility of the
acidic or basic soils associated with the contamination from- coming in contact with and damaging
foundation walls or utility lines. No unacceptable short-term risks will be caused by
implementation of the remedy. The community and site workers may be exposed to dust and noise
nuisances during excavation, however, mitigative measures will be taken during remedy
construction activities to minimize such impacts of construction upon the surrounding community
21
-------
and environs. Ambient air monitoring will be conducted and appropriate safety measures will be
taken if contaminants are emitted.
10.2 C ompliance with ARARs
The selected remedy will comply with all identified applicable or relevant and appropriate federal
requirements, and with those state requirements which are more stringent, unless a waiver is
invoked pursuant to Section 121(d)(4)(B) of CERCLA.
Section 121(d) of CERCLA requires that remedial actions'meet legally applicable or relevant and
appropriate requirements (ARARs) of other environmental laws. Legally, "applicable"
requirements are those cleanup standards, standards of control, and other substantive
environmental protection requirements, criteria, or limitations promulgated under Federal or State
law that specifically address a hazardous substance, pollutant, contaminant, remedial action,
location, or other circumstances at a CERCLA site. "Relevant and appropriate" requirements are
those requirements that, while not legally applicable to the remedial action, address problems or
situations sufficiently similar to those encountered at the site that their use is well suited to the
remedial action.
Non-promulgated advisories or guidance documents issued by federal or state governments ("to-
be-considered or TBCs") do not have the status of ARARs; however, where no applicable or
relevant and appropriate requirements exist, or for some reason may not be sufficiently protective,
non-promulgated advisories or guidance documents may be considered in determining the
necessary level of cleanup for protection of human health and the environment.
For a complete list of ARARs and TBCs for the alternatives at this site, see the FS Report. Below
is a discussion of the key ARARs for the selected remedy.
10.2.1 Chemical-specific ARARs
Chemical-specific ARARs regulate the release.to the environment of specific substances
having certain chemical characteristics. Chemical-specific ARARs typically determine the
extent of clean-up at a site.
10.2.1.2 Federal ARARs ,
Clean Air Act National Ambient Air Quality Standards 40 CFR 50 - These regulations
provide air emission requirements for actions which may release contaminants into the air
As the selected remedy involves excavation activities which may release contaminants or
particulates into the air, emission requirements pomulgated under this act are relevant and
appropriate.
22
-------
10.2.1.2 State ARARs
Michigan Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act 451, Part 201, as amended
(formerly Act 307) - These regulations provide guidelines and cleanup standards for
contaminated sites based on background levels, detection limits, health-based criteria, and
current or anticipated land use. U.S. EPA's selected soil cleanup standards for this site are
in compliance with Act 451, Part 201 and its implementing rules in that they meet the
standard for selection of standards. The cleanup levels for contaminants in soil are
determined by comparing current concentrations of contaminants with background
concentrations and with allowable concentrations based on (1) risks and (2) ARARs. Table
33 lists the representative chemicals found in soil and the corresponding cleanup standards.
These regulations are considered applicable to the Site.
Michigan Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act and Air Pollution Rules,
Michigan Ambient Air Quality Standards (MAAQS), Act 451, Part 55 (formerly Act 348 of
1965) - This act provides air emission requirements for actions which may release
contaminants into the air. The selected remedy involves excavation activities which may
release contaminants or particulates into the air. This act is relevant and appropriate.
10.2.2.0 Location-specific ARARs
Location-specific ARARs are those requirements that relate to the geographical position of
the site. These include:
10.2.2.1 Federal ARARs
Clean Water Act Section 404 - This section of the Act regulates the discharge of dredge
and fill materials at sites to waters of the United States. These regulations are applicable to
excavation and backfilling activities which may take place adjacent to the creek in the
former wetlands area.
Floodplain Management Executive Order 11988 - This order is applicable at this site. It
requires the minimization of potential harm to or within flood plains and the avoidance of
long and short term adverse impacts associated with the occupancy and modification of
flood plains.
10.2.2.2 State ARARs
Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Act, Act 347 of 1972 - This act is applicable to this
site because of the selected remedy's use of construction activities that may impact Ecorse
Creek. The act regulates earth changes, including cut and fill activities which may
contribute to soil erosion and sedimentation of surface water of the State. Act 347 would
23
-------
apply to any such action where more than one acre of land is affected or regulated action
occurs within 500 feet of a lake or stream.
10.2.3.0 Action-specific ARARs
Action-specific ARARs are requirements that define acceptable treatment and disposal
procedures for hazardous substances. These include:
10.2.3.1 Federal ARARs
RCRA Subtitle C Land Disposal Restrictions (LDRs) - These regulations govern the
storage and disposal of hazardous waste. These regulations will be applicable to any site
generated wastes which are characterized as hazardous waste. Soils at the site may exceed
the TCLP standard for characteristic waste. If so, treatment of the excavated soils would
be required prior to disposal in an off-site landfill.
10.2.3.2 State ARARs
Inland Lakes and Streams Act, Public Act 346 of 1972, as amended - The act regulates
construction activities on or above bottomlands of inland lakes and streams. This act will
be applicable to the selected remedy, because it addresses the mitigation of potential run-
off, erosion, silting, and sedimentation in surface waters during construction.
Michigan Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act, Act 451, Part 17 (formerly
Act 127 of 1970) - This act prohibits any action that pollutes, impairs, or destroys the
natural resources of the State. This act is applicable to the site since the site and the Ecorse
Creek are viewed as natural resources.
Michigan Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act, Act 451 Part 111 of 1994
(formerly Act 64 of 1979), as amended - This act regulates the generation, transportation,
treatment, storage and disposal of hazardous waste. This ARAR will be applicable if the
waste being disposed of off-site is characterized as hazardous.
Michigan Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act, Act 451, Part 115 of 1994
(formerly Act 641 of 1978), as amended - This act regulates the disposal of non-hazardous
solid waste. This act will be applicable for the off-site disposal of any waste which is non-
hazardous.
24
-------
10.3 Cost Effectiveness
Cost effectiveness compares the effectiveness of an alternative in proportion to its cost of providing
environmental benefits. It is estimated that the cost of implementing the selected remedy will be
5646,000 in total capital costs. There are no costs associated with operation and maintenance.
Appendix B, Table B-3 contains the detailed cost estimate for the selected remedy.
The selected remedy, Alternative 3, has been determined to afford overall effectiveness
proportional to its cost. Alternative 3 carries moderate costs in comparison to the other
alternatives considered. The No Action alternative, the alternative less costly than Alternative 3,
does not offer the protectiveness provided by Alternative 3, because it leaves contaminants on-site.
10.4 Utilization of Permanent Solutions and Alternative Treatment Technologies or Resource
Recovery Technologies to the Maximum Extent Practicable
The selected remedy represents the maximum extent to which permanent solutions and treatment
technologies can be used in a cost-effective manner at this site. Of those alternatives that are
protective of human health and the environment and that comply with ARARs, U.S. EPA has
determined that the selected remedy provides the best balance in terms of long-term effectiveness
and permanence, reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume of contaminants, short term
effectiveness, implementability, and cost, taking into consideration State and community
acceptance.
The excavation and off-site disposal of the shallow and deep contaminated soil will provide the
most permanent solution practical, proportionate to the cost.
10.5 Preference for Treatment as a Principal Element
Based on current information, U.S. EPA and the State of Michigan believe that the selected remedy
is protective of human health and the environment and utilizes permanent solutions and alternative
treatment technologies to the maximum extent possible. The remedy, however, does not satisfy the
statutory preference for treatment of the hazardous substances present at the site as a principal
element because such treatment was not found to be practical or cost effective. If characterized as
hazardous, however, the material will be treated off-site prior to disposal.
11.0 Summary
The selected remedy will satisfy the statutory requirements established in Section 121 of
CERCLA, as amended by SARA, to protect human health and the environment, will comply with
ARARs, will provide overall effectiveness appropriate to its costs, and will use permanent solutions
and alternate treatment technologies to the maximum extent practicable.
25
-------
-------
FIGURES
26
-------
-------
iiSiliiiiiiiiiiiiki'i'iiliiilii'
Jl ii iiDv ah., 'niillic
.
rj[f ih r i j 11. r! JL i\ i i ixia D > ji'jn ]
• diinp-nppo'i.]iijpi-i.p| p"
'
l>(»'»air » « •£ jc « • « itj. | a j [c ||xAl
I ' ! ' • : : i : : ; ; IN '-' : ' '"-I ! I
j,^-^''^ ^ U^^--i»L
-------
I •«• 11 I' I I i'•'""
) _.
Oak Street
**£^r • tr S. J4 -i'- _-
!
Sidewaik
Parking Lot
CQN-1
CON-5
N /
A
2303
Oak Street
House
7>d
Garage
Legend
Area excavated
ecology and environment, Inc.
Technical Assistance Team
Region V ^^
1 Confirmation Sample Locations j
Sample Locations ijjj
SOURCE/DATE
Ecology it Environment, inc.
June, 1995
Oak Street
i SCXLC •
Not to Scale
Wyandotte
snnt
Michigan
TOO f
T05-9505-009
Figure 2
-------
w*
u
: ;= 'on ^'•' •'Wt:
-------
g
M
-------
TABLES
27
-------
-------
Table 1
TABLE '
SURFACE SOIL INORGANIC ANALYTICAL RESULTS
LOWER ECORSE CREEK DUMP SITE
WYANDOTTE. MICHIGAN
Minimum
Total Positive Detection Delected
Parampter Analyses Detections Frequency Value
Aluminum 43 43 100% 3150
Antimony 42 38 90% 0 16
Arirmr 165 164 99% 130
narium 165 165 100% 1990
npryll.um 43 43 100% • 015
rii.lmnim inr. 63 3RX 008
Caloum 43 43 10O% 2690
Chromium 165 165 100% 230
Cobalt 43 43 10O% 1 80
0('l
-------
Table 2
TABLE
SUBSURFACE SOIL INORGANIC ANALYTICAL RESULTS
LOWER ECORSE CREEK DUMP SITE
WYANDOTTE, MICHIGAN
Minimum
Tolal Positive Detection Detected
Parameter Analyses Detections Frequency Value
Aluminum 40 40 100% 276000
Antimony 36 30 83% 000
Arsenic 347 328 95% 1.10
narium 347 347 10O% 1080
Ren/Ilium 40 39 98% 0 18
Cadmium 347 67 19% 004
Calcium 40 40 10O% 125000
Chromium 347 335 97% 400
Cohnll 40 40 10O% 240
i~np|.m 347 326 >)4% 500
Iron 347 347 100% 227000
li-3d 347 346 100% 0.64
Magnesium 40 40 1OO% 64800
Manganese 40 40 100% 65 80
Mercury 347 87 25% 010
Nickel 40 40 100% 500
Potassium 40 40 1OO% 30200
Selenium 347 34 10% 056
Silver 347 17 5% 0.08
Sodium 40 33 83% 18500
thallium 40 2 5% 1 10
Vnn.irlurm 40 40 1OO% 760
Zinc 347 343 99% 11.40
Maximum
Detected
Value
19200
4.0
30.9
603
1.3
3.9
64300
499
1B.1
810
114000
4510
18700
2010
8.8
156
5100
6.1
12.7
981
1.4
55.6
1090
MDNR Residential Site Specific
Cleanup Criteria Background Positive Detections Detection Frequency
Direct Co itact Concentrations Exceeding Background Exceeding Background Mean
ID 25958 0 0% 10738.98
150. ( 0.45 11 31% 059
55 136 . 135 39% 719
30001 127 150 43% 7911
2.3 1.2 1 3% .' 0 59
210C 1.7 32 9% 093
NA 62131 1 3% 2570120
2000 378 145 42% 2241
21000 189 1 3% 827
16000 306 157 45% 24.26
ID 34014 143 41% 16980.52
400 598 168 48% 44.70
1000000 15014 3 8% 7405.12
2000 429 3 8% 27405
130.0 0.25 60 17% 0.15
32000 50.9 1 3% 29.10
NA 6757 0 0% 232201
21000 164 20 6% 095
20000 014 16 5% 1.75
1000000 504 13 33% 421.26
280 0.75 2 5% 0.35
37000 538 1 3% 2720
140000 116 166 48% 84.30
UCL95%
12362.20
0.87
7.81
83.28
0.66
1.00
39030.16
24.61
9.43
26.35
17910.99
E0.01
9649.19
341.79
0.16
34.05
2801.01
1.01
1.98
537.31
0.43
30.S4
92.46
Units
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
ID = Inadequate data to develop criterion; NA = Not available
10/11/95
-------
Table 3
TABLE
SURFACE SOIL VOC ANALYT iCAL RESULTS
LOWER ECORSE CREEK DUMP SITE
WYANDOTTE, MICH IGAN
Minimum
Told Poittlve Detection Detected
Parameter Analyses Detections Frequency Value
Chloromelhane 40 0 0% 0.00
Bromomelhane 48 0 0% 000
Vinyl Chloride 46 0 0% 000
Chloroelharw 48 0 0% 000
Melhylene Chloride 46 12 26% 200
Ac»lon« 46 12 26% 500
Cirbon Dlsulllde 46 4 9% 2 00
1 1 Dichloroelhene 46 0 0% 000
1 1 Dichtoroethane 46 0 0% 000
1.2-Dlchlofoethene (lolal) 46 0 0% 000
Chloroform 46 0 0% 000
1.2-Dichloroelhane 46 0 0% 000
7-Bul*none 46 2 4% 300
1,1.1-Trlchloroethlne 46 2 4% 200
Carbon Tetraehloride 46 0 0% 0 00
Bromodichloromelhane 46 0 0% 000
1.2 Dlchloropropane 46 0 0% 000
cis-t.J-Olchlofopropene 46 0 0% 000
Trlehloroethene 48 1 2% 300
Dlbromochkjromelhane 46 0 0% 000
1,1.2-Trlchloroethlne 46 1 2% 300
Boniene 48 0 0% 000
Trans- 1.3-Dichlotopropene 46 0 0% 000
3romoform 46 0 0% 0.00
4-Melhyl-2-Penlanone 48 0 0% 000
2 He*anone 48 0 0% 000
Telrachloroelhene 46 0 0% 000
1.1.2.2 lelrachloroelhans 46 0 0% 000
Toluene 46 1 2% 200
Chlorobenzene 48 0 0% 000
Elhytbenzene 46 0 0% 000
Slyrene 48 0 0% 000
Xylenes (lolal) 46 0 0% 0 00
ND = Compound was Not Detected
Mailmum
Delected
Value
0.0
0.0
0.0
00
tf.O
7(0
10.0
0.0
00
0.0
0.0
0.0
s.o
1.0
00
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.0
00
3.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
00
0.0
2.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1 IDNR-fleeldentlal
Cleanup Criteria Positive Detections DelecHon Frequency
Direct Contact ExceedUg Criteria Exceeding Crllerta Mean
200.000 0 0% ND
150.000 0 0% NO
1.200 0 0% ND
870.000 0 0% ND
340.000 0 0% 1025
11.000.000 0 0% 1742
12.000.000 0 0% 45
110.000 0 0% ND
13.000.000 0 0% ND
1200000.00 0 0% ND
420.000 0 0% NO
28.000 0 0% ND
200.000.000 0 0% 40
3.100.000 0 0% 2.5
20.000 0 0% NO
41.000 .0 0% ND
38.000 0 0% ND
14.000 0 0% NO
160.000 0 0% 30
31.000 0 0% ND
45.000 0 0% 30
88.000 0 0% ND
14.000 0 0% ND
320.000 00% NO
5,500.000 0 0% NO
15,000.000 0 0% ND
50.000 0 0% ND
13.000 0 0% ND
24.000.000 0 0% 2.0
2.100.000 0 0% NO
11.000.000 0 0% NO
85.000 0 0% ND
'. 200.000.000 0 0% 1.5
1
1
1
UCL »5%
•.27
(.27
(.27
1.27
8.0C
10.03
•.41
(.27
(.27
(.27
(.27
(.27
121
(.31
(.27
(.27
(.27
(.27
(.27
(.27
• 27
(.27
(.27
(.27
(.27
(.27
(.27
(.27
(.3(
(.27
(.27
(.27
(.57
Units
ug/kg
ugftg
ug/kg
iigftg
ug/»g
ug/itg
ug/kg
10*8
ug/Vg
ug/fcg
ug/kg
ugftg
ug/kg
"91*9
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
ugftg
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
10/11/95
-------
Table 4
TABLE ^
SUBSURFACE SOIL VOC ANALYTICAL RESULTS
LOWER ECORSE CREEK DUMP SITE
WYANDOTTE. MICHIGAN
Minimum
Tola) Positive Detection Detected
Parameter Analyses Detections Frequency Value
Chloromethane 145 0 0% 00
nromomelhane 145 0 0% 00
Vinyl Chloride 145 0 0% 00
CWoroelhane 145 0 0% 11.0
Mplhylene Chloride 145 29 20% 70
Acetone 145 79 54% 1 0
Carbon Dlsulflde 145 56 39% 10
1 1 Dichloroelhene 145 0 0% 00
I i Dichloroethane 145 ' 0 0% 00
t 7-Dichloroelherm (total) 145 0 0% 00
Choroform 145 1 1% 20
1.2 Dichloroelhane 145 0 0% 40
2 Rutanone 145 54 37% 20
1 1 1 Tnchtoroethane 145 0 0% 00
Carbon Tetrachloride 145 0 0% 00
Tromodichloromelhane 145 0 0% 00
1.7 Dirhloropropane 145 0 0% 00
cis 1.3-Dichloroproprne 145 0 0% 00
trlchloroethene 145 1 1% 3.0
Oibromochloromethane 145 0 0% 00
1 1 2-Trichloroethane 145 0 0% 6.0
Benzene 145 4 3% 07
trans -1.2-Dtchtoropropene 145 0 0% 00
nromo'orm 145 0 0% 00
4 Melhyl-2-Pentanone 145 0 0% 00
? -Hexanone 145 0 0% 00
Inlrachloroelhene 145 0 0% 00
1.1.2.2-Tetrachloroethane 145 2 1% 20
Toluene 145 8 4% 10
Chlorobenzene 145 0 0% 130
Ethylbenzene 145 3 2% 10
Styrene 145 1 1% 20
Xylenc 145 6 4% 06
Maximum
Detected
Value
0.0
0.0
0.0
110
260
1300
65000
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.0
330
190
0.0
0.0
0.0
00
n.o
. .0
1.0
1.0
iu>
l.O
(.0
1.0
0.0
0.0
10.0
1S.O
13.0
11.0
•4.0
21.0
MDNR Residential
Cleanup Criteria Positive Detection* Detection Frequency
Direct Contact Exceeding Criteria Exceeding Criteria Mean
200,000 0 0% ND
150.000 0 0% ND
1,200 0 0% ND
670.000 0 0% ND
340.000 0 0% 1360
11.000.000 0 0% 9201
12.000.000 0 OX 2081
110,000 0 0% ND
13.000.000 0 0% ND
1200000.00 0 0% ND
420.000 0 0% 11.11
28.000 0 0% ND
200.000.000 0 0% 2145
3.100.000 0 0% ND
20.000 0 0% ND
41.000 0 0% ND
38.000 0 0% ND
14.000 0 0% ND
160.000 0 0% 11.11
31.000 0 0% ND
45.000 0 0% ND
88.000 0 0% 1070
14.000 0 0% ND
320,000 0 0% ND
5,500,000 0 0% ND
15.000.000 0 0% ND
50.000 0 0% ND
13.000 0 0% 1110
24.000.000 0 0% 1083
2,100,000 0 0% ND
11,000,000 0 0% 1080
85.000 0 0% 1110
200,000,000 0 0% 1103
UCLIS%
12.67
1287
12.67
12.67
18.72
129.43
28.33
12.67
12.67
12.67
12.88'
12.67
26.2S
12.67
12.67
12.67
1267
12.67
12.87
12.67
12.67
12.19
12.67
12.67
12.67
12.67
12.67
12.7S
12.43
12.67
12.30
12.67
12.61
Units
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/Vg
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
ND - Compound was Not Delected
10/11/95
-------
Table 5
TABLE" i
SURFACE SOIL CYANIDE ANALYTICAL RESULTS FROM PREVIOUS INVESTIGATION
LOWER ECORSE CREEK DUMP SITE
WYANDOTTE, MICHIGAN
Minimun
Total Positive Detection Detected
Parameter Analyses Detections Frequency Value
Oynnrde 170 88 73% 055
Maximum
Delected
Value
1730
Site Specific MDNR Residential Mean
Background Cleanup Criteria Positive Detections Detection Frequency Estimation
Concentration Direct Contact Exceeding Background Exceeding Background (a)
049 9.300 86 72% 602
UCL 95%
9.81
Units
mg/kg
10/10/95
-------
Table 6
TABLE
SUBSURFACE SOIL CYANIDE ANALYT CAL RESULTS FROM PREVIOUS INVESTIGATION
LOWER ECO *SE CREEK DUMP SITE
WYANl IOTTE, MICHIGAN
Minimum
Total Positive Detection Delected
Parameter Analyses Detections Frequency Value
Cyanide 307 237 77% 059
Maximum
Detected
Value
32300
Site Specific MONR Residential Mean
Background Cleanup Criteria Positive Detection* Detection Frequency Estimation
Concentration Direct Contact Exceeding Background Exceeding Background (a)
049 9.300 . 237 77% 593.70
UCL 95%
1005.72
Units
mg/Vg
10/10/95
-------
Table 7
TABLE
SURFACE SOIL CYANIDE ANALYTICAL RESULTS FROM Rl
LOWER ECORSE CREEK DUMP SITE
WYANDOTTE, MICHIGAN
Minimum
Total Positive Detection Detected
Parameter Analyses Detections Frequency Value
Cyanide 218 39 18% 024
Maximum
Detected
Value
4.00
Site Specific MDNR Residential Mean
Background Cleanup Criteria Positive Detections Detection Frequency Estimation
Concentration Direct Contact Exceeding Background Exceeding Background (a)
049 9.300 10 5% 018
UCL 95%
0.19
Units
mg/ks
10/10/95
-------
Table 8
TABLE •
SUBSURFACE SOIL CYANIDE ANALYTICAL RESULTS FROM Rl
LOWER ECORSE CREEK DUMP SITE
WYANDOTTE, MICHIGAN
Minimum
Total Positive Detection Detected
I'.ii.imptpi Analyses Detections Frequency Value
rv.iiwlr r.n 5 9% 037
Maximum
Detected
Value
1.50
Site Specific MDNR Residential
Background Cleanup Criteria Positive Detects Detection Frequency Mean
Concentration Direct Contact Exceeding Background Exceeding Background Estimation
0 49 9.300 2 3% 0.23
UCL 95%
0.26
Units
mg/kg
10/1R/95
-------
Table 9
TABLE -
SURFACE SOIL SVOC/PNA ANALYTICAL RESULTS
LOWER ECORSE CREEK DUMP SITE
WYANDOTTE. MICHIGAN
UKWKUK
Total Povtrv* Detection Otteaad
PanrMtor Anaiysa* 0«*MUons Fnpuancy Vilua
PMM4 150 1 IS 590
l»a<2-CNaroamvflEIMr 1M 0 OX 00
2-CNorotMMI 1M 0 0% 00
i.3-o*Morea4nzm IM o 0% 00
1.4-OKMaraoaittana IM o ox oo
1 2-OKNorooannna IM a 0% 00
2 UHMBflxnl IM 0 0% 00
2.7-a«yaaxi-cnorooropafia> IM o ox oo
1 lll»i,li«inil 1M 1 IK 520
iMHMniafii IM o o% oo
HUUM.Hil IM 0 OX 0.0
3-iaruOKOd IM 0 0% 00
2.44>MMVrraianoi IM o ox o.o
a«3-a«oio«mary*<«ow>« IM o ox 00
2.4-OlrMoracnanol 1M 0 OX 00
iJ.4.T«iorooanian« 1M o ox oo
NaMUMtana 'ts «t 37X too
4-CMaroaMm IM 0 OX 00
2.4.*.Tna»orao»anol 1M 0 0% 00
2.4.5VrrtcMraoMnot 1JS 0 OX 00
2 «•!•••• 13* 0 OX 00
2.1 OmalOaMlK IM 0 OX 0.0
iimtmm* IM o ox oo
Acarw*aM»a 185 20 11% 110
2.4-OMM0IM 1M 0 OX 0.0
i mammal IM 0 OX 00
NMna*»nit i>< 33 24x to
2.44MnUMM 1M 0 OX 00
Oli»rrloMnol IM 0 OX 00
PtiuiiMirini IIS 151 «SX 210
HOnitti 115 «t 33% 70
CarkanU 13* 21 1]% 70
fiianmrnm* its 17» J2X 200
PyiMM 111 1U 91 X 230
lm.l»«iiilol«lnmi 1M » 2tx 10
3.T-O«»«>roewn»n« IM 0 OX 00
>Mi«|»M4hranM 1<5 (S3 13% 230
civrwM its is? asx 200
8*m (k| AlMTMIMfM 149 117 79X 190
a«a>lt)fllMrMMM 149 22 ISX UO
BmnUlnmi* Its 141 7SX 210
MM*|1.J,l<*lmnfM IIS 13 4SX 240
CXMnn li.nl MKMCMM las 35 I9X 240
am»«ryum lt5 71 42X 210
8M» I5UI (luonnllMfM M U IOOX MO
10 * Inadequate data to develop criterion
NL • MONK ROOM* CMimio CrMru Mr Oma Conao 04)
1200
2300
74041
MONK RnMxnil Pouiv* 0*a*a*m 0««Mn Fmwncv
Clurnw Crm«4 ECMang EcMOng
Direct Contact Cmeria Cr««n« U«»fl
te.ooo.ooo o ox 221 93
2.300 0 OX NO
840.000 0 QX NO
9.400.000 0 OX NO
110.000 0 OX NO
9.400.000 0 OX NO
5500.000 0 OX NO
NL 0 OX NO
2.100.000 0 OX 2201
370 0 OX 223 SO
140000 0 OX NO
51.000 0 OX NO
2.700.000 0 OX NO
1.200.000 0 OX NO
2t.000.000 0 OX NO
NL 0 OX NO
4.200.000 0 OX NO
1 300.000 0 OX NO
15000000 0 OX 25X1
NL 0 OX NO
130.000 0 OX NO
2.200.000 0 OX *>
10 0 OX 25423
3.000.000 0 0% NO
900.000 0 OX NO
42.000.000 0 OX NO
27.000.000 0 OX NO
NL 0 OX NO
1.000.000.000 0 OX 21111
t. 500.000 0 0% 30110
NL 0 OX NO
NL 0 OX NO
70.000.000 0 OX 2M.1*
NL 0 OX NO
NL 0 OX NO
10 0 OX 21713
15.000 0 OX NO
320.000.000 ' 0 OX 20994
NL 0 OX NO
SI 000.000 0 OX 2U91
NL 0 OX NO
NL 0 OX NO
520.000 0 OX 22112
NL 0 .OX NO
9,200 0 OX 222.97
12.000 0 OX NO
1.500.000 0 OX 34410
420.000.000 0 OX 30127
NL 0 OX 21721
51.000.000 0 OX 21100
51.000.000 0 OX 4M.U
33.000.000 0 OX 43350
14000.000 0 OX 21 7 M
S.700 0 OX NO
14000 '0 OX 341 90
1.400.000 0 OX 371.24
700.000 0 OX 239 72
7.100.000 0 OX 22343
14.000 0 OX «9M
140.000 0 OX 23149
1400 5 )X UOM
14.000 0 OX 300 00
1400 0 OX 21401
1 500.000 0 OX 2M 27
14000 0 OX «S74
UCLMX
Hill
233.02
Zii.il
233.02
233.92
233.92
233.92
133.92
131.11
113.47
233.02
233.92
113.02
133.91
111.02
133.02
233.42
131.02
304.94
233.91
213.92
Z31.9J
10J.1t
233-11
21UJ
M4JT
233.91
H4J7
237.10
310.44
114.11
444.41
1U.H
MU7
S4U7
2U.I1
213.92
213.40
113.01
111.47
S44.27
M4.17
232.14
211.91
211.14
544.21
41LM
341.47
141.11
244.14)
921.9*
121.47
247.3*
211.11
411.11
447.12
214.44
231.74
411.11
2SS.9*
1471*
141 S3
11472
3U.14
1077.92
Units
"9*0
UQIta
ugftg
UOAO
ggftfl
uoAo
uoAg
uoAO
UOA«
uoAo
"»*»
uoAO
uoA«
uoAg
ugAo
UOAO
uoAo
UO^O
uo^a
UOAO
uortfl
UOAO
"0*)
UOAO
upAO
UOAO
ugrtg
uoAO
uoAO
uoAO
uo/to
UOAO
UOAO
UOAO
ug*o
"OAO
ug/ka
uoAo
go^g
UOAO
ugrta
ugAo
uoAo
u«Ao
uoAo
UOAO
UOAO
U0»0
uaAo
UOAO
UOAO
ugAO
U>AO
uoAg
UOAO
ugAo
UOAO
uoAo
UOAO
UOAO
uoAO
uo^o
ggH,
ugfto
uoAo
-------
Table 10
TABLE •
SUBSURFACE SVOC/PNA ANALYTICAL RESULTS
LOWER ECORSE CREEK DUMP SITE
WYANDOTTE. MICHIGAN
' Mjmnun
Tot* Poaitv* D«t*c*on D*t*a*4
P»nm»»r toxtnn 0«IM*ont fmMnoi VaH»
Plwwl 321 i 2X 32.0
tni<2-Cnan»tiyl)Etw 321 3 OX 00
2-cmmertra 321 T on o o
l,3-Olcf«oroo«nMn» 521 0 0% 00
1,»OWllara6OTUlM 322 2 IX 12-0
1.2-OK«o«nMn4> 321 0 OX 00
2-«Mh«H>««l«r» 321 0 0% 00
MnMnzin* 321 o 0% oo
iKCMrerw 321 0 OX 00
2-Ntfroorwnai 321 o ox o o
2.4-otn4*rtMnoi 321 < ox 170
biX2-otu»o«noiy)MMww 321 ) ox oo
2.4-CfcOoroWWW 321 : OX 00
l.2.4.Tnef«j«o«nMr» 321 3 OX 0.0
N^MMtan* 353 '90 45% 150
4-ci*>re«ln> 321 o ox oo
HnxXoraouaaant 321 0 OX 00
4-CMOro~3*MAt1l^prMnot 321 3 OX 0.0
^•udtoncvctafMflttdirw 321 0 OX 0 0
2.4>TikMonpmnoi 321 o ox o.o
2,«.J-Tikrtoropr»na 321 a ox oo
2*CNoroni^MuMn* 321 o ox o.o
2'M»MHln« 321 0 OX 00
OXlUVM"""" 321 21 7X 22.0
*IH««H«H»»HH 353 *4 27% 21.0
2XJ>imn«*» 121 o ox o.o
3-NHO«*l« 321 0 OX 0.0
AMMpfttmn 353 SI 14% 19.0
2.4-OhnnMKOl 320 0 OX 0.0
4-N*W*nol 320 0 OX 0.0
Dtomaftnn 321 it 27X 100
2.4-OiWMolu«n* 320 0 OX 0.0
OMiythtulaU 320 ' 1X 390
4-CI*ropMnoH>MrM>*Mr 320 3 OX 00
nuanrw 352 J4 24X 21.0
4-NftTWIMTM 320 0 OX 0.0
4>Cnoo-2-m«twW>«no( 320 0 OX 0.0
4-Brafnopn>nvtffri9MtKr 320 0 OX 0.0
Htuanoncxram 320 0 OX 00
n*IUHIl*n* 352 253 72% 50
IliUri 353 144 41% 210
CvMxota 321 74 23% 22.0
Otfl-ButvtMutaU 322 !« 17% 12.0
FluorMMn* 352 297 78% 70
Pyrira 353 2S4 75% 200
J.r-OknoicMnadn* 320 0 ox 00
8«r|r<*«* 352 112 32% 140
a«rai(MJdflucnn*M'M 9 9 100% 1100
10 * madoouu* d*a to 4*v«lop cntwwn
N* . MONR RMKMnW Qittnf Cnt»n« tor Qnet Ccnaa wu Not Ulttd or UnivMMM
M«xknum
0«t*ct*«
VikM
2200
0.0
0.0
0.0
14.0
0.0
17.0
00
IHO
0.0
0.0
00
0.0
0.0
170
0.0
0.0
0.0
1400*
0.0
0.0
MM
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.9
0.0
4M
2SOt
0.0
0.0
170»
0.0
0.0
110M
0.0
1U.I
o.<
1700*
0.0
0.0
0.0
tM
MOM
2MM
MM
170
1HOM
1200M
0.0
MOM
MOM
1 /WM
1M
7IOM
tfM
I40M
270M
MM
MM
1WM
UONB NohtonlUI Pinlv* OKUCMO D«l«eMn Fnou«v
Ctetrav Crlurla EicMdno; EioMdn;
Of»ctConUet Cnt«U CnlM tM*\
59000.000 0 OX 299.56
2.300 0 OX NO
590000 0 OX HO
3400.000 0 OX NO
110.000 0 ox 291 M
9400.000 0 OX NO
5500,000 0 OX 271.M
NL 0 0% NO
2.100.000 0 0% 291.30
370 0 0% NO
190.000 0 0% NO
51000 0 0% NO
2.700.000 0 OX NO
•• 200.000 0 OX NO
21.000.000 0 OX 271.02
ML 0 OX NO
' 200.000 0 OX NO
9300.000 0 0% NO
15 000.000 0 0% MUM
NU 0 OX NO
130.000 0 OX NO
2.200.000 0 0% NO
IO 0 0% 303.H
3000000 0 0% NO
900.000 0 0% NO
42.000.000 0 0% NO
27.000,000 0 0% NO
NL 0 0% NO
1.000.000.000 0 0% NO
1 SOO.OOO 0 0% 2974*
NL 0 0% NO
NL 0 0% NO
7t.000.000 0 0% 30U1
NL o ax NO
NL 0 OX NO
<0 0 OX 2*5.3f
15000 0 OX NO
320.000.000 0 OX 277.51
NL 0 OX NO
St. 000.000 0 OX 335.40
NL 0 OX NO
NL 0 0% NO
520.000 0 ' 0% 262^4
NL 0 0% NO
9200 0 0% NO
92.000 0 0% 9M.OV
1 500.000 0 0% 7*0.10
420.000.000 0 0% 390.M
NL 0 0% 295.42
51. 000.000 0 OX 271.22
51000.000 0 OX 1074.30
32.000.000 0 OX 1022.40
5 700 ' . 0 OX NO
14.000 « 2X 902.1*
1 400.000 0 OX 109*.t1
700.000 0 OX 352.30
7.900.000 0 . OX 290.54
14.000 11 3X IU4.7*
140.000 0 OX 305.54
1.400 35 10X 703.37
14.000 1 OX 415.C2
1400 4 IX 313.3*
1500.000 0 OX 3*5.0*
14.000 1 11X 2502.51
UCLH*
304-21
atM
2t).M
»3.M
1M.M
noj*
2UJ3
2U.O*
J14-J4
2*1.0*
»>.M
tUM
293.M
»1.M
tll.M
HIM
2».M
1UJ*
417.M
HIM
29U*
293^**
143.71
2*1XM
«U*
ntM
293^4
7M.M
r»7J7
1}*J*
2*4.n
TOt.M
111.74
nojj
no.M
J2J.7*
ZUJ1
291. M
291^1
1MJ*
noja
710JJ
101^2
293 »41
297 JO
TOUT
121.2*
utM
12S.1t
103J7
112IJ*
12M.1*
107 7*
»3J*
H7M
11M.W
»1.M
:«.n
1M9.4I
324^*
U1J4
U9.11
J40.17
4M.*>
141 K.M
uo*o
ug*g
ug*g
"9*9
U9*o
119*9
"9*9
"9*9
"9*9
"9*9
"9*9
"9*9
"9*9
"9*9
"9*9
"9*9
"9*9
"9*9
"9*9
"9*9
"9*9
"9*9
"9*9
"9*9
"9*9
"9*9
"9*9
"9*9
"9*9
"9*9
"9*9
"9*9
"9*9
"9*9
"9*9
"9*9
"9*9
"9*9
"9*9
"9*9
"9*9
iV*g
"9*9
"9*9
"9*9
"9*9
"9*9
"9*9
"9*9
"9*9
"9*9
"9*9
"9*9
"9*9
"9*9
"9*9
"9*9
"9*9
"9*9
"9*9
"9*9
"9*9
"9*9
"9*9
NO • CorWouM WU Not D4(*CMd
-------
Table It
TABLE •(• • J
SURFACE SOIL DIOXIN ANALYTICAL RESULTS FROM Rl
LOWER ECORSE CREEK DUMP SITE
WYANDOTTE, MICHIGAN
Minimum
Total Positive Detection Detected
Parameter Analyses Detections Frequency Value
TCDFs (total) 800% 0.0
23.7.8-TCDF 8 0 O% 00
PeCDFs (total) 8 0 0% 00
1.2.3,7.8-PeCDF 800% 00
2.3.4. 7.8-PeCDF 8 0 0% 00
HxCDFs (total) 8 0 0% 00
1. 2.3.4. 7,8-HxCDF 8 00% 00
1.23.6.7.8 HxCOF 8 0 0% 00
2 3.4.6.7.8 HxCDF 8 0 0% 00
1.2.3,7.8.9-HxCDF 8 0 0% 00
HpCDFs (total) 8 0 0% 00
t 2.3 4.6.7. 8-HpCDF 8 0 0% 00
1.2.3.4.7.8.9-HpCDF 800% 0.0
OCDF 800% 00
rCDDs (total) 8 0 0% 0 0
2.3.7.8-TCDD 800% 00
PeCDDs (total) 800% 00
1. 2.3.7.8 PeCDD 800% 00
HxCDDs (total) 800% 00
1 2.3 4 7 8-HxCDD 8 0 0% 00
1.2.3.6.7.8 HxCDD 800% 00
1 2 3.7.8.9-HxCDD 80 0% 00
HpGnDs (total) 8 0 0% 00
1.2.34 67 8-HpCDD 8 0 0% 00
OCDD 8 5 63% 047
Total TCDDs equiv
Maximum
Detected
Value
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0 I
0.0
0.0
o.o I
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
00
0.0
0.0
16.0
0.016
MDNR Re*ldential Positive Detections Detection Frequency
Cleanup Criteria Exceeding Exceeding
Direct Contact Criteria Criteria Mean
0 0% ND
0 0% ND
0 0% ND
0 0% ND
0 0% ND
0 0% ND
00% ND
0 0% ND
0 0% ND
0 0% ND
0 0% ND
0 0% ND
0 0% ND
0 0% ND
0 0% ND
0 0% ND
0 0% ND
0 0% ND
0 0% ND
0 0% ND
0 0% ND
0 0% ND
0 0% ND
0 0% ND
0 0% 7 35
009 0 0%
UCL 95%
O.S1
0.28
0.49
0.16
0.17
0.12
O.OS
0.05
0.05
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.08
0.07
0.24
0.10
0.13
0.13
0.09
0.11
0.09
0.10
0.14
0.12
1835.97
Units
ng/g
ng/g
ng/g
ng/g
ng/g
ng/g
ng/g
ng/g
ng/g
ng/g
ng/g
ng'g
ng/g
ng/g
ng/g
ng/g
ng/g
ng/g
ng/g
ng/g
ng/g
ng/g
ng/g
ng/g
ng/g
ND = Compound was Not Detected
10/11/95
-------
Table 12
TABLE-
SUBSURFACE SOIL DIOXIN ANALYTICAL RESULTS FROM Rl
LOWER ECORSE CREEK DUMP SITE
WYANDOTTE, MICHIGAN
Minimum
Total Positive Detection Detected
Parameter Analyses Detections Frequency Value
ICnrs (total) 16 0 0% 00
2.3.7.IJ.1CDF 16 0 0% 00
Pur.ors (total) 16 0 0% 00
1.2.3.7.8-PeCDF 16 0 0% 00
73.4.7 8-PeCDF 16 0 0% 00
HxCDFs (total) 16 0 0% 00
12.3.4. 7. 8-HxCDF 16 0 0% 00
1 2.367.8-HxCDF 16 0 0% 00
2.34.6.7.8-HxCDF 16 0 0% 00
1. 2.3.7. 8.9-HxCDF 16 0 0% 00
MpCDFs (total) 16 0 0% 00
1 2 3.4.6.7.8-HpCDF 16 0 0% 00
1.2 3.4.7. 8.9-HpCDF 16 0 0% 00
OCDF 16 0 0% 00
TCDDs (total) 16 0 0% 00
237.8-TCDD 16 0 O% 00
PeCDDs (total) 16 0 0% 00
1. 2.3.7. 8-PeCDD 16 0 0% 00
HxCDDs (total) 16 0 0% 00
1. 2.3.4. 7.8-HxCDD 16 0 0% 00
12.36.78 HxCDD 16 0 0% 00
1 ? 3.7.8. 9-HxCDO 16 0 0% 00
HpCDDs (total) 16 0 0% 0.0
1.2.3.4. 6.7, 8-HpCDD 16 0 O% .0.0
OCDD 16 7 44% 078
Total TCDDs equiv
Maximum
Detected
Value
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
8.8
0.0086
MDNR Residential Positive Detections Detection Frequency
Cleanup Criteria Exceeding Exceeding
Direct Contact Criteria Criteria Mean
0 0% NO
00% ND
0 0% ND
0 0% ND
0 0% ND
0 0% ND
0 0% ND
0 0% ND
0 0% ND
0 0% ND
0 0% ND
0 0% ND
0 0% ND
0 0% ND
00% ND
0 0% ND
0 0% ND
0 0% ND
0 0% ND
0 0% ND
0 0% ND
0 0% ND
0 0% ND
0 0% ND
0 0% 362
0.09 0 0%
UCL 95%
0.22
0.18
0.1«
0.18
0.20
O.OT
0.09
0.07
0.09
0.10
0.12
0.12
0.1S
0.12
0.11
0.09
0.25
0.25
0.18
0.20
0.18
0.19
0.32
0.32
38.65
Units
ng/g
ng/g
nglg
ng/g
ng'g
ng/g
ng/g
ng/g
ng'o
ng/g
"a'a
"9'9
ng/g
ng/g
ng/g
ng/g
"B'B
ng'9
ng/g
ng'9
"9/8
ng/g
ng/g
ng/g
ng/g
ND = Compound was Not Detected
10H 1/95
-------
Tjrble 13
TABLE . ;
SURFACE SOIL PCB ANALV "ICAL RESULTS FROM Rl
LOWER ECORSE CHEEK DUMP SITE
WYANDOTTE, MICHIGAN
Minimum
Total Positive Detection Detected
Parameter Analyses Detections Frequency Value
Aroclor-1016 16 0 0% 0.0
Aroclor-1221 16 0 0% 00
Aroclor-1232 16 0 0% 00
Aroclor-1242 16 0 0% 0.0
Atoclor 12-lfl 16 0 0% 0.0
Aroclor-12f)4 16 0 0% 00
Aroclor-1260 16 2 12% 24.0
Maximum
Detected
Value
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
48.0
MDNR Residential Positive Detections Detection Frequency
Cleanup Criteria Exceeding Exceeding
Direct Contact Criteria Criteria Mean
2,300 0 0% ND
2,300 0 0% ND
2,300 0 0% ND
2,300 0 0% ND
2,300 0 0% ND
2,300 0 0% ND
2,300 0 0% 360
UCL 95%
56.74
56.74
56.74
56.74
56.74
56.74
• 59.79
Units
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
NO = Compound was Not Detected
10/17/95
-------
Table 14
TABLE
SUBSURFACE SOIL PCB ANALYTICAL RESULTS FROM Rl
LOWER ECORSE CREEK DUMP SITE
WYANDOTTE. MICHIGAN
Minimum
Total Positive Detection . Detected
Parameter Analyses Detections Frequency Value
Aroclor-1016 17 0 0% 0.0
Aroclor-1221 17 0 0% 00
Aroclor-1232 17 0 0% 00
Aroclor-1242 17 0 0% 00
Aroclor-1248 17 0 0% 00
Aroclor-1254 17 1 6% 2500
Aroclor-1260 17 1 6% 40
Maximum
Detected
Valut
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
250
4.0
MDNR Residential Positive Detections Detection Frequency
Cleanup Criteria Exceeding Exceeding
Direct Contact Criteria Criteria Mean
2.300 0 0% ND
2.300 0 0% ND
2.300 0 0% ND
2.300 0 0% ND
2.300 0 0% NO
2.300 0 0% 5558
2.300 0 0% 2992
UCL95%
37.37
74.51
37.37
37.37
37.37
106.64
42.31
Units
ugftg
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
ND = Compound was Not Detected
10/11/95
-------
Table 15
TABLE"
PERCHED GROUNDWATER INORGANIC ANALYTICAL RESULTS
LOWER ECORSE CREEK DUMP SITE
WYANDOTTE, Ml
Minimun
Total Positive Detection Detected
Parameter Analyses Detections Frequency Value
Cyanide 7 4 57% 15.1
Aluminum 3 0 0% 0.0
Antimony 3 0 0% 0.0
Arsenic 3 1 33% 5.6
Barium 3 3 100% 253.0
Beryllium 3 o 0% 0.0
Cadmium 3 0 0% 0.0
Calcium 3 3 100% 236000
Chromium 3 0 0% 0.0
Cobalt 3 3 100% 0.6
Copper 3 2 67% 0.4
Iron 3 3 100% 1190
Lead 3 0 0% 0.0
Magnesium 3 3 100% 104000
Manganese 3 3 100% 993.0
Mercury 30 0% 0.0
Nickel 3 1 33% 4.2
Potassium 3 3 100% 7420
Selenium 3 2 67% 4.6
Silver 3 00% 0.0
Sodium 3 3 100% 84700
Thallium 1 1 100% 11.9
V.inndium 3 3 100% 0.58
Zinc 3 3 100% 0.54
Maximum
Detected
Value
31.4
0.0
0.0
5.6
276
0.0
0.0
254000
0.0
1.6
0.9
7790
0.0
129000
1420
0.0
4.2
25600
8.1
0.0
100000
11.9
2.5
2.4
Site
Specific
Background Mean
490 15.11
25,958,000 ND
450 ND
13.640 2.96
127,000 264.75
1.200 ND
1,650 ND
62,131.000 247401.47
37,800 ND
16.900 1.19
30.60O 0.55
34,014.000 7036.97
59.800 ND
15,014,000 120647.89
429,000 1284.00
250 ND
50.900 2.24
6,757,000 14586.39
1.640 5.45
140 ND
504,000 94537.47
750 11.90
53,800 1.39
116,000 1.72
UCL95%
79.89
126.53
NA
29241220.78
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.58
13.12
•12.54
120902672.79
NA
153006.19
2067.72
NA
39837.62
1328723.07
1853.04
NA
113017.73
NA
455.45
507.16
Units
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ND = Analyle was Not Detected
10/17/951:48 PM
Page 1
TAB4-16N XLSTABLE 4-18
-------
T 1 able 16 — -
PERCHED GROUNDWATER VOC ANALYTICAL RESULTS
LOWER ECQRSE CREEK DUMP SITE
W fANDOTTE, Ml
Minlmun
Total Positive Detection Detected
Parameter Analyses Detections Frequency Value
Chloromethane 2 0 0% 0.00
Bromomethane 2 0 0% 0.00
Vinyl Chloride 2 0 0% 0.00
Chloroelhane 200% 0.00
Melhylene Chloride 2 0 0% 0.00
Acetone 200% 000
Carbon Disulfide 2 00% 0 00
1.1-Dichloroethene 2 0 0% 000
1,1 Dichloroelhane 200% 000
1 ,2-Dichloroethene (total) 200% 0 00
Chloroform 2 0 0% 0.00
1 ,2-Dichloroelhane 2 0 0% 0.00
2-Bgtanone 2 -1 50% 300
1.1.t-Trlchloroethane 200% 0.00
Carbon Telrachloride 200% 0 00
Bromodichloromethane 2 0 0% 0.00
1 ,2-Dichloropropane 2 0 0% 0.00
cis-1.3-Dichloropropene 2 0 0% 0.00
Trichloroethene 2 0 0% 0.00
Dibromochloromethane 2 0 0% 0.00
1,1,2-Trichloroelhane 200% 0.00
Benzene 2 0 0% 0.00
Trans- 1.3-Dichloropropene 2 0 0% 0.00
Bromoform 2 0 0% 0.00
4 Methyl-2-Penlanone 200% 0.00
2-Hexanone 2 0 0% 0.00
Telrachloroethene 200% 0.00
1.1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 200% 0.00
Toluene 200% 000
Chlorobenzene 2 0 0% 000
Ethylbenzene 200% 0.00
Styrene 2 0 'o% 0.00
Xylenes (total) 2 1 £O% 1.00
Maximum
Detected
Value
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
3.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.00
Mean
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
300
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1.00
UCL 95%
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NA
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NA
Units
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ND = Compound was Not Detected
10/16/95
Page 1
TAB4 17N XLSTABLE 4-16
-------
Table 17
TABLE , ,
PERCHED GROUNDWATER SVOC ANALYTICAL RESULTS
LOWER ECORSE CREEK DUMP SITE
WYANDOTTE, Ml
Minimun
Total Positive Detection Detected
Parameter Analyses Detections Frequency Value
Naphthalene 2 1 50% 1.00
Acenaphlhylene 2 0 0% 0.00
Acenaphthene 2 1 50% 0.50
Fluorene 2 0 0% 0.00
Phenanthrene 2 0 0% 0.00
Anthracene 2 0 0% 0.00
Fluoranthene 2 0 0% 0.00
Pyrene 2 0 0% 0.00
Benzo(a)anthracene 2 0 0% 0.00
Chrysene 2 0 0% 0.00
bis(2-Ethylhexy)phthalate 2 0 0% 0.00
Benzo(b)fluoranlhene 2 0 0% 0.00
Benzo(k)fluoranthene 2 0 0% 0.00
Benzo(a)pyrene 2 0 0% 0.00
lndeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 2 0 OYe 0.00
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 2 0 0% 0.00
2 -Methy (naphthalene 2 1 50% 0.30
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 2 0 0& 0.00
Maximum
Detected
Value
1.00
0.00
0.50
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.30
0.00
Monn
1.00
ND
0.50
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.30
ND
UCL95%
NA
ND
NA
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NA
ND
Units
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ND = Compound was Not Detected
10/17/953:01 PM
Pagel
TAB4-18N.XLSTABLE4-17
-------
Table 18
TABLE ;- . •
SURFACE WATER INORGANIC ANALYTICAL RESULTS
LOWER ECORSE CREEK DUMP SITE
WYANDOTTE, Ml
Minimum
Total Positive Detection Detected
Parameter Analyses Detections Frequency Value
Cyanide 6 6 100% 18.00
Aluminum 6 6 100% 848.00
Antimony 6 0 0% 0.00
Arsenic 6 5 83% 1.70
Barium 6 6 100% 80.40
Beryllium 6 1 17% 0.11
Cadmium 6 5 83% 0.59
Calcium 6 6 100% 72400.00
Chromium 6 6 100% 7.70
Cobalt 6 5 83% 0.52
Coppor 6 6 100% 7.30
Iron 6 6 100% 1320.00
Lead 6 4 67% 19.80
Magnesium 6 6 100% 12400.00
Manganese 6 6 100% 129.00
Mercury 600% 0.00
Nickel 6 1 17% 8.20
Potassium 6 6 100% 13800.00
Selenium 6 0 0% 0.00
Silver 6 0 0% 0.00
Sodium 6 6 100% 702000.00
Thallium 0 0 0% 0.00
Vanadium 6 6 100% 4.20
Zinc 6 3 50% 102.00
Maximum
Detected
Value
22.80
2600.00
0.00
3.00
108.00
0.11
1.70
64600.00
19.30
1.60
27.10
4920.00
57.80
14900.00
221.00
0.00
8.20
18300.00
0.00
0.00
962000.00
0.00
9.80
211.00
Mean
20.20
1582.00
ND
2.26
89.73
0.11
0.92
77283.33
1 1 .23
1.12
13.48
2565.00
30.08
13666.67
161.17
ND
8.20
15616.67
ND
ND
824833.33
ND
6.43
139.67
ND = Compound was Not Detected
UCL 95%
21.71
2966.80
2.18
2.78
98.64
0.13
1.74
81296.98
15.64
2.20
24.06
4833.73
46.07
14497.32
193.94
ND
7.27
17042.40
ND
ND
917865.95
ND
9.14
166.11
Units
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
10/17/951:52 PM
Pagel
TAB4-19N.XLSTABLE 4-21
-------
Table 19
TABLE f^
SURFACE WATER VOC ANALYTICAL RESULTS
LOWER ECORSE CREEK DUMP SITE
WNANDOTTE, Ml
Minimum
Total Positive De ectton Detected
Parameter Analyses Detections Fre |uency Value
Chloromelhane 6 0 0% 0.00
Bromomethane 6 0 0% 0.00
Vinyl Chloride 6 0 0% 0.00
Chloroelhane 600% 000
Methylene Chloride 600% 0.00
Acetone 6 0 0% 0.00
Carbon Disulfide 6 0 0% 0.00
1.1-Dichloroethene 600% 0.00
1.1-Dichloroethane 600% 000
1 .2-Dichloroelhene (total) 600% 0.00
Chloroform 6 0 ' 0% 0.00
1 .2-Dlchloroethane 6 0 0% 0.00
2-Butanone 600% 0.00
1.1.1-Trichloroethane 6 0 0% 0.00
Carbon Tetrachloride 6 1 17% 1.00
Bromodichloromethane 6 0 0% 0.00
1.2 Dichloropropane 6 0 0% 0.00
cis-1.3-Dichloropropene 6 0 0% 0.00
Trichloroethene 6 0 0% 0.00
Dibromochloromethane 6 0 0% 0.00
1.1.2-Trichloroethane 6 0 O% 0.00
Benzene 6 1 17% 2.00
Trans-1,3-Dichloropropene 6 0 0% 0.00
Bromolorm 6 0 0% 0.00
4 Methyl-2-Pentanone 600% 000
2-Hexanone 6 0 0% 000
Tetrachloroethene 6 0 0% 000
1.1.2.2-Tetrachloroethane 6 0 O% 0.00
Toluene 6 4 67% 4.00
Chlorobenzene 6 0 0% 0.00
Ethylbenzene 6 1 17% 2.00
Styrene 600% 0.00
Xylenes (total) 6 4 87% 4.00
Maximum
Detected
Value
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
9.00
0.00
2.00
0.00
15.00
Mean
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1.00
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
2.00
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
200
ND
10.25
UCL9S%
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
12.0S
ND
ND
ND
ND
NO
ND
8.89
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
7.84
ND
6.89
ND
17.89
Units
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ND = Compound was Not Detected
tn/in/9r>fl
20N.XLSTA 4-19
-------
Table 20
TABLE
SURFACE WATER SVOC ANALYTICAL RESULTS
LOWER ECORSE CREEK DUMP SITE
WYANDOTTE, Ml
Minimum
Total Positive Detection Detected
Parameter Analyses Detections Frequency Value
Napthalene 60 0% 0.00
Acenaphthylene 600% 000
Acenaphlhene 6 0 0% 0.00
Fluorene 600% 000
Phenanthrene 6 0 0% 0.00
Anthracene 6 0 0% 0.00
Fluoranthene 6 0 0% 0.00
Pyrene 600% 0.00
Benzo(a)anthracene 6 0 0% 0.00
Chrysene 600% 0.00
bis(2-Ethylhexy)phlhalate 600% 000
Benzo(b)fluoranthene 6 0 0% 0.00
Benzo(k)fluoranthene 6 0 0% 000
Benzo(a)pyrene 6 0 0% 0.00
lndeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 6 0 0% 0.00
Dibenzo(a.h)anthracene 6 0 0% 0.00
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 6 0 0% 0.00
Maximum
Detected
Value
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Mean
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
UCL 95%
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Units
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ND = Compound was Not Delected
10M6/958:42 AM
Page 1
TAB4-21N.XLSTABLE 4-20
-------
Table 21
TABLE
SEDIMENT INORGANIC ANALYTICAL RESULTS
LOWER ECORSE CREEK DUMP SITE
WYANDOTTE, Ml
Minimum
Total Positive Detection Detected
Parameter Analyses Detections Frequency Value
Cyanide 7 4 57% 0.32
Aluminum 7 7 100% 9030.00
Antimony 7 6 86% 0.68
Arsenic 7 7 100% 890
Barium 7 7 100% 153.00
Beryllium 7 7 100% 0.62
Cadmium 7 7 100% 2.30
Calcium 7 7 100% 34400.00
Chromium 7 7 100% 48.60
Cobalt 7 7 100% 6.60
Copper 7 7 100% 89.00
Iron 7 7 100% 19300.00
lead 7 7 100% 19200
Magnesium 7 7 100% 1090000
Manganese 7 7 100% 285.00
Mercury 7 7 100% 0.38
Nickel 7 7 100% 26.90
Potassium 7 7 100% 1850.00
Selenium 7 7 100% 1.30
Silver 7 7 100% 100
Sodium 7 7 100% 817.00
Thallium 7 0 0% 0.00
Vanadium 7 7 100% 29.70
Zinc 7 7 100% 457.00
ND = Compound was Not Detected
Maximum
Detected
Value
0.66
15300.00
1.30
12.60
217.00
0.93
4.60
61300.01
120.00
11.60
151.00
32600.0'!
625.00
18000.00
676.00
8.90
36.60
3470.00
2.40
2.90
2170.00
0.00
46.20
685.00
Site Specific Positive Detection Detection Frequency
Background Exceeding Exceeding
Concentrations Background Background Mean
0.49 1 14% 0.48
25958.00 0 0% 12347.14
0.45 6 86% 0.90
13.64 0 0% 10.39
127.00 7 . 100% 180.57
1.20 0 0% 0.79
1.65 7 100% 361
62131.00 0 0% 5044286
3780 7 100% 73.20
1690 0 0% 9.19
30.60 7 100% 115.29
34014.00 0 0% 26785:71
5980 7 100% 285.00
15014.00 2 29% 13928.57
429.00 6 86% 556.43
0.25 7 100% 1.86
50.90 0 0% 30.93
6757.00 0 0% 2611.43
1.64 3 43% 1.63
0.14 7 100% 1.63
504.00 7 100% 1239.29
0.75 0 0% ND
53.80 0 0% 37.17
116.00 7 100% 582.57
UCL 95%
0.64
14345.67
1.62
11.36
199.32
0.88
4.54
58490.73
95.74
10.67
131.34
30856.47
415.42
16142.41
728.62
9.29
33.22
3306.28
1.95
2.37
1659.97
0.51
41.62
664.98
Units
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
10/16/958 43AM
Pagel
TAB4-22N XLSTABLE 4-24
-------
Table 22
TABLE . I ,
SEDIMENT VOC ANALYTICAL RESULTS
LOWER ECORSE CREEK DUMP SITE
WYANDOTTE, Ml
Minimum
Total Positive Detection Detected
Parameter Analyses Detections Frequency Value
Chloromethane 6 0 0% 0.00
Bromomethane 6 0 0% 0.00
Vinyl Chloride 6 0 0% 0.00
Chloroethane 6 0 0% 0.00
Methylene Chloride 6 0 0% 0.00
Acetone 6 4 67% 34.00
Carbon Disulfide 6 0 0% 0.00
1,1-Dichloroethene 6 0 0% 0.00
1,1-Dichloroethane 6 0 0% 0.00
1,2-Dichloroelhene (total) 600% 0.00
Chloroform 6 0 0% 0.00
1,2-Dichloroetnan* 600% 0.00
2-Butanon» 600% 0.00
1,1,1-Trichioroethane 600% 0.00
Carbon Tetrachloride 600% 0.00
BromooSchloromethane 600% 0.00
1,2-Dichloropropane 6 0 0% 0.00
cis-1 ,3-Dichtoropropene 6 0 0% 0.00
Trichloroethene 6 0 0% 0.00
Dibromochloromethane 6 0 0% 0.00
1,1,2-Trichloroethane 6 0 0% 0.00
Benzene 60 0% 0.00
Trans-1,3-Dichloropropen« 600% 0.00
Bromoform 600% 0.00
4-Methyl-2-Pentanone 600% 0.00
2-Hexanone 600% 0.00
Tetrachloroethena 6 0 0% 0.00
Toluene » 6 0 0% 0.00
1.1,2,2-Tetrachtoroethwa 600% 0.00
Chterobenzene 600% 0.00
Ethylbenzene 600% 0.00
Styrene 6 0 0% 0.00
Xylenes (total) 6 1 17% 10.00
Maximum
Detected
Value
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
92.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
O.CO
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
10.00
Mean
ND
ND
ND
ND
NO
52.75
ND
ND
ND
ND
•;2
NO
ND
NO
NO
ND
NO
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
. 10.00
UCL95%
15.02
15.02
15.02
15.02
15.02
114.63
15.02
15.02
15.02
15.02
15.02
15.02
15.02
15.02
15.02
15.02
15.02
15.02
15.02
15.02
15.02
15.02
15.02
15.02
15.02
15.02
15.02
15.02
15.02
15.02
15.02
15.02
15.54
Units
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/Vg
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
. ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
NL » MDNR Residential Cleanup Criteria for Direct Contact was Not Listed
ND • Compound was Not Detected
10/17/951:54 PM
Page 1
TAB4-23N.XLSTABLE 4-22
-------
Table 23
"ABLE : :.*.
SEDIMENT SVOC/PNA ANALYTICAL RESULTS
LOWER ECORSE CREEK DUMP SITE
WYANDOTTE, Ml
Total
Parameter Analyses
Naphthalene 7
Acenaphthylene 7
Acenaphthene 7
Fluorene 7
Phenanthrene 6
Anthracene 6
Carbazole 6
Fluoranlhene 7
Pyrene 7
Butylbenzylphlhalate 6
Benzo(a)anthracene 7
Chrysene 6
bis(2-Ethylhexy)phthalate 6
Di-n-octylphthalate 6
Benzo(b)fluoranthene 6
Benzo(k)fluoranthene 6
Benzo(a)pyrene 7
lndeno(1,2.3-cd)pyrene 7
Dibenzo(a.h)anthracene 7
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 7
Minimum
Positive Detection Detected
Detections Frequency Value
0 0% 0.00
1 14% 91.00
0 0% 0.00
4 57% 100.00
6 100% 52000
6 100% 11000
6 100% 100.00
7 100% 1300.00
7 100% 1000.00
6 100% 130.00
7 100% 37000
6 100% 710.00
6 100% 2000.00
6 100% 200.00
6 100% 490.00
6 100% 610.00
7 100% 490.00
7 100% 200.00
7 100% 48.00
7 100% 110.00
Maximum
Detected
Value
0.00
91.00
0.00
150.00
1300.00
240.00
200.00
2900.00
3200.00
280.00
1200.00
1500.00
4000.00
560.00
1800.00
2000.00
920.00
640.00
260.00
300.00
Mean
ND
91.00
ND
130.00
92833
17500
140.00
198571
217143
21000
762.86
109500
2866.67
360.00
1273.33
119500
72714
415.71
16543
201.43
NL = MDNR Residential Cleanup Criteria for Direct Contact was Not Listed
ND = Compound was Not Detected
UCL 95%
653.04
802.26
553.04
493.14
1292.72
228.28
175.63
2561.27
3504.03
293.70
1093.90
1438.63
3798.69
594.06
2341.84
1865.51
861.40
675.37
329.43
285.63
Units
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
10/16/958 44 AM
Page 1
TAB4-24N XLSTABLE 4-23
-------
Table 24
TABLE.
BASEMENT SUMP WATER INORGANIC ANALYTICAL RESULTS
LOWER ECORSE CREEK DUMP SITE
WYANDOTTE, Ml
Minimum
Total Positive Detection Detected
Parameter Analyses Detections Frequency Value
Cyanide 8 3 38% 8.10
Aluminum 8 6 75% 8.10
Antimony 8 0 0% 0.00
Arsenic 8 7 88% 1.60
Barium 8 7 88% 15.70
Beryllium 8 0 0% 0.00
Cadmium 8 2 25% 0.71
Calcium 8 8 100% 3670000
Chromium 8 2 25% 9.50
Cobalt 8 7 88% 056
Copper 8 8 100% 4.40
Iron 8 7 88% 1060.00
Lead 8 8 100% 2.90
Magnesium 8 7 88% 5060.00
Manganese 8 7 88% 33.40
Mercury 8 1 13% 141.00
Nickel 8 1 13% 906.00
Potassium 8 7 88% 2480.00
Selenium 8 2 25% 4.40
Silver 8 2 25% 0.54
Sodium 8 7 88% 11700.00
Vanadium 8 8 100% 0.98
Zinc 8 1 13% 26500.00
Maximum
Detected
Value
5150
6170
0.0
19.60
63.40
0.00
11.30
231000
36.1
11.6
5740
67500
125
56200
632
141
906
9600
14.1
2.40
2300000
16.4
26500
Mean
313.30
5392.06
ND
6.01
44.61
ND
1.04
107850.11
653
1.95
520.37
8009.72
17.35
32238.24
241.22
6.80
48.54
11064.53
3.37
0.51
198463.12
5.01
129638
UCL 95%
416141.05
809795.57
2.64
27.88
70.71
0.08
16.61
224673.46
32.00
8.63
114440.23
135348.25
80.39
118165.80
2134.05
9689.38
6765.26
410423.43
8.00
1.24
4244492.12
15.24
1783618.81
Units
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ND = Compound was Not Detected
10/16/958 44 AM
Pagel
TAB4-25N XLSTABLE 4-27
-------
Table 25
TABLE
BASEMENT SUMP WATER VOC ANALYTICAL RESULTS
LOWER ECORSE CREEK DUMP SITE
WYANDOTTE, Ml
Mtnirntifn
Total Positive Detection Detected
Parameter Analyses Detections Frequency Value
Chloromelhane 600% 0.00
Bromomelhane 6 0 0% 0.00
Vinyl Chloride 600% 0.00
Chloroethane 600% 0.00
Melhylene Chloride 600% 0.00
Acetone 600% 0.00
Carbon Disullide 6 1 17% 0.60
1.1-Dlchloroelhene 600% 0.00
1,1 Dichloroelhane 600% 0.00
1 .2-Dichloroelhene (total) 600% 0.00
Chloroform 6 0 0% 0.00
1,2-Dichloroethane 6 0 0% 0.00
2-Bulanone 6 0 0% 0.00
1.1,1-Trichloroethane 600% 0.00
Carbon Telrachloride 6 0 0% 0.00
Bromodlchloromethane 6 0 0% 0.00
1,2-Dichloropropane 6 0 0% 0.00
cis-1.3-Dlchloropropene 6 0 0% 0.00
Trichloroethene 6 0 0% 0.00
Dibromochloromethane 6 0 0% 0.00
1.1,2-Trichloroethane 600% 0.00
Benzene 6 0 0% 0.00
Trans- 1,3-Dlchloropropene 6 0 0% 0.00
Bromolorm 6 0 0% 0.00
4-Methyl-2-Pentanone 6 0 0% 0.00
2-Hexanone 600% 0.00
Tetrachloroethene 600% 0.00
1.1.2,2-Tetrachloroethane 600% 0.00
Toluene 6 0 0% 0.00
Chlorobenzene 6 0 0% 0.00
Ethylbenzene 6 0 0% 0.00
Slyrene 600% 0.00
Xylenes (total) 600% 0.00
Maximum
Detected
Value
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.60
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Mean
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.60
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
UCL 95%
12.29
12.29
12.29
12.29
12.29
12.29
13.51
12.29
12.29
12.29
12.29
12.29
12.29
12.29
12.29
12.29
12.29
12.29
12.29
12.29
12.29
12.29
12.29
12.29
12.29
12.29
12.29
12.29
12.29
12.29
12.29
12.29
12.29
Units
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ND = Compound was Not Delected
in/in/151:.
TAB4-26N.XLST,
1-26
-------
Table 26
TABLE '
BASEMENT SUMP WATE ^ SVOC ANALYTICAL RESULTS
LOWER ECORSE CREEK DUMP SITE
WYANDOTTE, Ml
Minirnun
Total Positive Detection Detected
Parameter Analyses Detections Frequency Value
Napthalene 800% 0.00
Acenaphthylene 8 0 0% 0.00
Acenaphlhene 8 0 0% 000
Fluorene 8 0 0% 0.00
Phenanthrene 8 1 13% 17.00
Fluoranthene 8 0 0% 0.00
Pyrene 800% 000
Benzo(a)anthracene 8 0 0% 0.00
bis(2-Ethylhexy)phthalate 8 1 13% 140.00
Benzo(b)fluoranthene 8 0 0% 0.00
Benzo(k)fluoranthene 8 0 0% 0.00
Benzo(a)pyrene 8 0 0% 0.00
lndeno(1,2.3-cd)pyrene 8 0 0% 0.00
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 8 0 0% 0.00
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 8 0 0% 0.00
4-Methylphenol 8 2 25% 13.00
Phenol 8 13% 110.00
2,4-Dimelhylphenol 8 13% 26.00
Di-n-butylphthalate 8 13% 3.00
Butylbenzylphthalate 8 25% 12.00
Di-n-octylphthalale 8 13% 78.00
Diethylphthalate 8 13% 12.00
Maximum
Detected
Value
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
17.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
140
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
13.00
110.0
26
3.0
15.0
78
12.00
Mean
ND
ND
ND
ND
1399
ND
ND
ND
121.72
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
13.00
10512
20.26
374.61
13.58
89.69
106.58
UCL 95%
33.31
2202
2202
2202
19.10
2202
2202
2202
144.96
2202
2202
2202
2202
2202
2202
N/A
110
40.7
448504
15.25
102.04
1565
Units
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ND = Compound was Not Detected
>
1
10/16/958 45 AM
Pagel
TAB4-27N XLSTABLE 4-27
-------
Table 27
BASEMENT SEDIMENT INORGANIC ANALYTICAL RESULTS
LOWER ECORSE CREEK DUMP SITE
WYANDOTTE, Ml
Minimum
Total Positive Detection Detected
arameter Analyses Detections Frequency Value
yanide 4 2 50% 0.61
Uiminum 4 4 100% 8520.00
ntimony 3 2 67% 0.68
rsenic 4 4 100% 5.50
larium 4 4 100% 84.20
leryllium 4 4 100% 0.26
.admium 4 4 100% 0.45
alcium 4 4 100% 25200.00
:hromium 4 4 100% 16.10
:oball 4 4 100% 580
opper 4 4 100% 21.70
on 44 100% 18800.00
ead 4 4 100% 22.00
lagnesium 4 4 100% 334000
langanese 4 4 100% 1200.00
tercury 4 3 75% 0.17
Jicfcal 4 4 100% 1610
'olassium 4 4 100% 1030.00
Selenium 4 1 25% 1.10
^Iver 4 4 100% 0.32
iodium 4 4 100% 245.00
hallium 400% 000
'anadium 4 4 100% 11.50
'.inc 4 4 100% 7920
Maximum
Detected
Value
0.74
12500
6.50
6.70
177.00
0.61
5.80
99200
68.10
9.50
1180
32000
1570
7590
1420
1.10
243
2230
1.10
1.10
859.00
0.00
25.10
1210
Site Specific Positive Detections Detection Frequency
Background Exceeding Exceeding
Concentrations Background Background Mean
0.49 2 50% 0.47
25958.00 0 . 0% 10761.69
0.45 2 67% 5.09
13.64 0 0% 6.06
127.00 1 25% 115.57
1.20 0 0% 0.44
1.65 2 50% 3.05
62131.00 3 75% 76323.53
37.80 1 25% 33.75
1690 0 0% 7.01
3060 3 75% 686.48
34014.00 0 0% 24588.85
59.80 3 75% 923.84
15014.00 0 0% 5929.23
429.00 4 100% 1291.03
0.25 1 25% 0.43
50.90 1 25% 83.54
6757.00 0 0% 1728.31
164 0 0% O.52
0.14 4 100% 0.63
504.00 2 50% 544.56
0.75 0 0% ND
53.80 0 0% 21.04
116.00 3 75% 910.41
UCL 95%
3.52
13944
65826296990130
6.87
202.54
0.87
186.90
345200.64
153.46
9.67
12011630.49
33562.88
19864780.73
11423.57
1431.54
33.40
10018.33
2925.68
3.22
2.61
1620.68
0.32
40.90
90279.68
Units
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
JU = Compound was Not Detected
10/16/958:45 AM
Page 1
TAB4-28N.XLSTABLE 4-30
-------
Table 28
TABLE ^
BASEMENT SEDIMENT VOC ANALYTICAL RESULTS
LOWER ECORSE CREEK DUMP SITE
WYANDOTTE, Ml
Total Positive
Parameter Analyses Detections
Chloromethane 0
Bromomethane 0
Vinyl Chloride 0
Chloroethane 0
Methylene Chloride 0
Acetone 1
Carbon Disulfide 0
1,1-Dichloroethene 0
1.1-Dichloroelhane 0
1 . 1 -Dichloroethene (total) 0
Chloroform 0
1.2-Dichloroelhane 0
2-Butanone 0
1.1.1-Trichloroethane 0
Carbon Tetrachloride 0
Jromodichloromethane 0
1 ,2-Dichloropropane 0
cis-1.3-Dichloropropene 0
Trichloroethene 0
Dibromochloromethane 0
1 . 1 ,2-Trichloroethane 0
Benzene 0
Trans-1,3-Dichloropropene 0
Bromotorm - 0
4-Methyl-2-Pentanone 0
2-Hexanone 0
Tetrachloroethene 0
Toluene 0
1 . 1 .2.2-Tetrachloroethane 0
Chlorobenzene 0
Ethylbenzene 0
Styrene 0
Xylenes (total) i 0
Mlnlmun
Detection Detected
Frequency Value
0% 0.00
0% 0.00
OX, 0.00
04, 0.00
0 4 0.00
100% 14.00
0 « 0 00
0 6 0 00
0 <, 0.00
0 £ 0 00
0% 000
0% 000
0% 000
0% 000
0% 000
0% 000
0% 0.00
0% 0.00
0% 000
0% 0.00
0% 0.00
0% 0.00
0% 000
0% 0.00
0% 0.00
0% 0.00
0% 0.00
0% 0.00
0% 000
0% 000
0% 0.00
0% 000
0% 0.00
Maximum
Detected
Value
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
14.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Mean
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
14.00
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ML - MDNR Residential Cleanup Criteria tor Direct Contact was Not Listed
ND = Compound was Not Detected
UCL 98%
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Units
ug/kg
ug/kg
ufl*g
ug/kg
ug/Kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
ugftg
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/Vg
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
Page
TAB4T29N XLSTAB.
-------
Table 29
TABLE 4-30
BASEMENT SEDIMENT S'^OC/PNA ANALYTICAL RESULTS
LOWER ECORSE CREEK DUMP SITE
WYAMDOTTE, Ml
Minimum
Total Positive Detection Detected
Parameter Analyses Detections Frequency Value
Napthalene 1 0 0% 0.00
Acenaphthylene 1 0 0% 000
Acenaphlhene 1 0 0% 000
Fluorene 1 0 0% 0.00
Phenanthrene 1 0 0% 0.00
Anthracene 1 0 0% 000
Carbazole 1 00% 0.00
Fluoranthene 100% 000
Pyrene 1 0 0% 000
Butylbenzylphthalate 1 0 0% 000
3enzo(a)anthracene 1 0 0% 0.00
Chrysene 1 0 0% 0.00
bis(2-Ethylhexy)phthalate 1 0 0% 000
Di-n-octylphthalate 1 0 0% 000
Benzo(b)fluoranthene 1 0 0% 0.00
Benzo(k)fluoranUiene 1 0 0% 0.00
Benzo(a)pyrene 1 0 0% 0.00
lndeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 1 0 0% 0.00
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 1 0 0% 0.00
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 1 0 0% 0.00
Maximum
Detected
Value
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Mean
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NL = MDNR Residential Cleanup Criteria for Direct Contact was Not Listed
ND = Compound was Not Detected
UCL 95%
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Units
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
10/16/958 47 AM
Page 1
TAB4-30N XLSTABLE 4-29
-------
Table 30
. •' * _T
Summary of Risks Associated with Exposures and Major Contributors
Lower Ecorse Creek Dump Site
Wyandotte, Michigan
ARF.A
RESIDENTIAL
SURFACE
SOILS
RESIDENTIAL
SUBSURFACE
SOU,S
1 101 SPOT
SIIUI AC E
SOILS
nor SPOT
SUBSURFACE
SOILS
PARK
SURFACE
SOILS
SURFACE
WATER
SEDIMENTS
SUMP WATER
SUMP SEDIMENTS
EXPOSURE
ROUTE
digestion
Inhalation
Dermal
TOTAL
Ingestion
Inhalation
Dermal
TOTAL
Ingestinn
Dermal
TOTAL
Ingestion
Dermal
TOTAL
Ingestion
Inhalation
Dermal
TOTAL
Ingestion
Dermal
TOTAL
Ingestion
Dermal
TOTAL
Dermal
Dermal
TOTAL
RME ADULT
CANCER
RISK
IE-6
IE-II
5E-6
6E-6
5E-6
2E-8
3E-7
5E-6
--
--
--
--
-
--
6E-6
8E-9
5E-6
1E-5
7E-8
IE-8
8E-8
IE-7
5E-9
IE-7
IE-8
8E-9
2E-8
HAZARD
INDEX
2E-3
2E-6
3E-2
3E-2
4E-3
2E-3
4E-3
IE-2
2E-2
9E-3
2E-2
2E-I
IE-1
4E-I
4E-2
2E-3
3E-2
7E-2
3E-3
6E-4
3E-3
2E-5
2E-4
2E-4
9E-6
3E-3
3E-3
CTE ADULT
CANCER
RISK
7E-8
(»)
IE-7
2E-7
3E-7
(•)
4E-8
3E-7
(a)
(»)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(•)
4E-7
(a)
2E-7
6E-7
(a)
(a)
(a)
(«)
(>)
(a)
(»)
(»)
(a)
HAZARD
INDEX
3E-4
(a)
2E-3
3E-3
7E-4
(a)
2E-3
2E-3
(a)
(a)
(•)
(a)
(a)
(a)
7E-3
(a)
3E-3
IE-2
(a)
(a)
(«)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(•)
RME CHILD
CANCER
RISK
3E-6
IE-II
2E-6
5E-6
IE-5
2E-8
2E-8
IE-5
—
—
-
--
-
-
IE-5
9E-9
2E-5
3E-5
8E-8
7E-9
8E-8
3E-7
2E-9
3E-7
NOT EVALUATED
NOT EVALUATED
NOT EVALUATED
HAZARD
INDEX
2E-2
IE-5
5E-2
7E-2
4E-2
8E-3
IE-3
5E-2
IE-1
IE-2
2E-I
2E+0
2E-I
2E+0
3E-I
8E-3
6E-I
9E-I
IE-2
IE-3
IE-2
2E-4
2E-9
2E-4
NOT EVALUATED
NOT EVALUATED
NOT EVALUATED
CTE CHILD
CANCER
RISK
9E-7
(a)
2E-7
IE-6
4E-6
(a)
8E-9
4E-6
(a)
(a)
(•)
-
-
-
5E-6
(a)
2E-7
5E-6
(a)
(a)
(«)
(•)
(a)
(•)
NOT EVALUATED
NOT EVALUATED
NOT EVALUATED
HAZARD
INDEX
6E-3
(a)
4E-3
9E-3
IE-2
(a)
5E-4
IE-2
(a)
(a)
(»)
7E-I
2E-2
7E-I
IE-1
(a)
5E-3
IE-1
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
NOT EVALUATED
NOT EVALUATED
NOT EVALUATED
MAJOR
CONTRIBUTOR
PNAs
PCBs, Mn
PNAs, Sb
CS2
CN-
CN-
As, PNAs
CS2
As, PCBs
As, Mn
As, Mn, CCI4
PNAs, Hg
PNAs
(II exposure scenario was not evaluated because RME exposure scenario risks/hazard indices were below NCP range of I x 10 to IxlO or below I.
-------
Table 31
Chemical
Indtnot l-2J-cd)pyrene
Benzo (a) pyrene
Dibenzo (»,h) anthracene
Benzo (g,h,i) perylene
Benzo (b&k) fluoranthene
1 ,4-Dichloro benzene
2-Methylphenoi
2,4-Dimethylphenol
Pentachlorophenol
Table
,- :. . COCs
Lower Ecorse Creek Site FS
Page I of 2
Maximum Concentration
Detected
(ug/kg)
19000
6400
3800
8000
15000
14
87
170
930
Detected in Soils
PRG
(ug/kg)
1.40E+04
1.40E+03
1.40E+03
1.50E+06
1.40E-HM
I.10E+05
5.50E+06
2.10E-K)7
8.20E-HM
Target Method
Detection Limit
(ug/kg)
330
330
330
330
330
10
10
330
3,400
PCBs
Arochlor-1254
Arochlor-1260
250
48
2.30E+03
2.30E+03
330
330
Dioxins
OCDD
16
9.00E-02
0.001
Inorganics
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Cyanide
ran
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
rhallium
Vanadium
Zinc
1.92E+07
7.00E-H)3
3.09E-HM
1.16E+03
1.30E+03
2.12E-HM
I.15E+08
6.76E+05
1.81E+04
1.51E+06
3.ZJE+07
1.14E+08
4.51E+06
5.97E-M)6
1.50E-H)7
8.80E-HX)
1.56E-KJS
5.10E-HJ6
6.10E+03
1.27E+04
9.81E+05
I.40E+03
1.89E+OS
5.65E+06
ID
I.SOE-H)5
1J7E+04
3.00E-H)7
2.30E+03
2.10E+05
NA
2.00E+06
2.10E+06
1.60E+07
I.OOE+06
ID
4.00E+OS
l.OOE+09
2.00E+06
1.30E-H3S
3.20E-H)7
NA
2.10E+06
2.00E+06
I.OOE+09
2.80E+04
3.70E-H)6
1 .40E-H)8
700
500
100
1000
200
2.10E+OS
NL
200
500
1 60E+07
500
2000
1000
3000
2000
100
1000
NL
500
500
NA
500
1000
1000
Bold type indicates compounds exceeding the compound-specific MDEQ Direct Contact Value
Cleanup Criteria is based on MDEQ Interim Environmental Response Division Operational Memorandum 48.
Revision 4: Generic Residential Cleanup Criteria or Calculated Background
-------
.:.
Chemical
Table -
. :•?• _.,. ~ forCOCs
Lower Ecorse Creek Site FS
Page 1 of 2
Maximum Concentration
Detected
(ug/kg)
Detected in Soils
PRG
(ug/kg)
Target Method
Detection Limit
(ug/kg)
VOCs
Vlethylene chloride
Acetone
Carfaon disulfide
2-Butanone
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
Frichloroethene
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
Toluene
Chloroform
Benzene
1 , 1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroe thane
Ethylbenzcne
Styrene
Xylene
260
1300
65000
190
3
3
6
15
2
26
10
11
94
21
3.40E+05
1.10E+07
1.20E+07
2.00E+08
3.10E-H36
1.60E+05
450E+04
2.40E-KJ7
420E+05
8.80E+04
1.30E+04
1.10E+07
8.50E+04
2.00E-HJ8
10
100
100
100
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
JU
SVOCs
Phenol
4-Methylphenoi
S-Nitroso-Di-n-Propylamine
Naphthalene
2-Methylnapthalene
Dimethylphthalate
Acenaphthylene
Acenaphthene
Dibenzofuran
Diethylphthalate •
Fluorene
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine (1)
Hexachloro benzene
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
Carbazole
Di-n-burylphthalate
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Butylbenzylphthalate
Benzo (a) anthracene
Chrysene
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate
Di-n-octylphthaiate
Benzo (b) fluonnthene
Benzo (k) fluoranthene
2200
87
320
14000
9600
450
2500
2700
11000
590
17000
5000
27
94000
23000
9000
1300
150000
120000
2900
60,000
84000
77000
21
72000
3900
6.60E-H)7
2.10E+06
3.70E+02
l.50E-H)7
ID
1.00E-H»
1.50E+06
7.60E-H)7
ID
3.20E+08
5.10E+07
5.20E+OS
6.20E+03
1.50E-HJ6
4.20E-H)8
NL
5.10E+07
'S.10E-H)7
3,20E-H)7
6.80E+07
1.40E-HM
1.40E+06
7.00E+05
7.60E-KJ6
1.40E-HM
1.40E-H)5
330
330
330
330
330
330
330
330
330
330
330
330
330
330
330
NL
330
330
330
330
330
330
330
330
330
330
-------
Table 33
Soil Cleanup Levels
Chemical
Indeno( 1 ,2,3 -ccDpyrene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Arsenic
Cyanide
Lead
Benzo(a)anthracene
Maximum Concentration
Detected (u2/kg>
19,000
6,400
3,800
72,000
30,900
3.23E+07
4.51E+06
60,000
Cleanup Level (ug/kg)
14,000
1,400
1,400
14,000
13,600
l.OOE+06
4.00E+05
14,000.
-------
-------
Responsiveness Summary
28
-------
-------
12.0 RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
The public participation requirements of CERCLA sections 113 (k) (2) (I-v) and 117 of CERCLA
have been met during the remedy selection process. Section 113(k)(2)(B)(iv) and 117(b) of
CERCLA requires the EPA to respond "...to each of the significant comments, criticisms, and new
data submitted in written or oral presentations" on a proposed plan for a remedial action. The
Responsiveness Summary addresses concerns expressed by the public, potentially responsible
parties (PRPs), and governmental bodies in written and oral comments received by EPA and the
State regarding the proposed remedy for the Lower Ecorse Creek Site.
Background
U.S. EPA issued a fact sheet to the public in December, 1993, at the beginning of the Remedial
Investigation. The Agency also hosted a public meeting on January 13, 1994, to provide
background information on the Lower Ecorse Creek site, explain the Superrund process, and
provide details of the upcoming investigation. The remedial investigation was completed in
February 1996, and in February, 1996, U.S. EPA issued a second fact sheet to summarize the
results of the investigation.
The RI/FS reports and the Proposed Plan for the Lower Ecoisc Cicck sii.c were released to the
public for review in April 1996. Information repositories have been established at the following
location: Bacon Memorial Library, 45 Vinewood Avenue, Wyandotte, Michigan, 48192. The
Administrative Record has been made available to the public at the U.S. EPA Docket Room in
Region V and at the information repository.
A public meeting was held on May 9, 1996, to discuss the FS and the Proposed Plan. At this
meeting, representatives from the U.S. EPA and the Michigan Department of Environmental
Quality answered questions about the Site and the remedial alternatives under consideration.
Formal oral comments on the Proposed Plan were documented by a court reporter. A verbatim
transcript of this public meeting has been placed in the information repositories and Administrative
Record. Written comments were also accepted at this meeting. The meeting was attended by
approximately 50 persons, including local residents and PRPs.
The FS and Proposed Plan were available for public comment from April 30, 1996 through May
29, 1996. Comments received during the public comment period and the U.S. EPA's responses to
those comments are included in the attached Responsiveness Summary, which is a part of this
ROD. Advertisements announcing the availability of the Proposed Plan, start of the comment
period were published in the News Herald and Detroit News newspapers on May 5, 1996. A
correction was subsequently published in the Detroit Freepress and Detroit New on May 8 and 9,
1996, the New Herald on May 5, 1996, and in the Heritage newspaper on June 1, 1996, to correct
the date of the public meeting.
29
-------
During the comment period, EPA received approximately 5 written submittals of comments and 5
oral comments concerning the proposed plan.
Summary of Significant Comments
Comment 1: One commenter stated that they strongly recommend Alternative 3 since it is the
most effective; it would remove all contaminated soil and is the least costly. They'
also stated that Alternative 2 is not preferred because it would not remove deep
contaminated soil, and the application of deed restrictions to the property would be
"disasterous". They further requested that the additional sampling and excavation at
the Oak Street location be scheduled for the month of August when the restaurant
that uses the lot for customer parking is closed..
Response 1: U. S. EPA acknowledges the comment. The Agency will work with the owner of
the Oak Street property and the management of the restaurant that uses the parking
lot to try to accomodate their schedule as best we can.
Comment 2: One commenter stated that they definitely agree with the recommendation for
Alternative 3 because it is the only way for the neighborhood to get rid of the stigma
- - associated with the contamination. They additionally stated that the cleanup ihculJ
begin immediately. They did not understand why they would have to wait until next
year, and why their property needs to be sampled again.
Response 2: U.S. EPA acknowledges the comment. We are constantly working to expedite
cleanups at Superfund sites. One of the things done at this site to make it move
through the process more quickly was to utilize the removal cleanup to gather data
which could then be used in the Remedial phase of the project, avoiding having to
resample areas to get the appropriate quality of data. We will work throughout this
cleanup to streamline the process and complete the project as quickly and efficiently
as we can.
However, there are things we are required to complete before we can actually start
the excavation project. At this site att least two steps must be taken. First, we must
determine who is going to perform the cleanup. Either U.S. EPA will do the work
using Superfund Trust Fund money, or the potentially responsible parties will use
their own resources to peform the work. U.S. EPA is committed to trying to get
those responsible for creating contamination problems to perform the cleanup. If
they fail to step up and commit to undertake the action U.S. EPA will be forced to
use money from the Superfund Trust Fund to perform the work. In the long run,
where there is not an immediate threat to public health or the environment, it is
beneficial to everyone to avoid unnecessarily relying on the Trust Fund to pay for
the cleanup and having the potentially responsible parties undertake the work. That
makes those funds available for projects where there in no private party to step
30
-------
forward to do the work. At this site we intend on approaching the parties to ask
them to perform the cleanup. We hope to complete that negotiation process within
a couple of months after the ROD is issued. If they refuse, we are prepared to use
the Fund monies.
The second step to complete is the design phase of the project. This phase primarily
consists of assembling all of the plans for carrying out the cleanup, including work
plans to detail how the excavation will take place, health and safety plans for the
workers, sampling plans to help determine when excavations are complete,
restoration plans for the properties being affected, to name a few. Documents also
need to be assembled to prepare to acquire bids and hire contractors to do the work.
This design phase can take at least 6 months to complete and is necessary to ensure
that the cleanup is performed properly and will meet specifications. We will take
whatever steps we can to expedite this phase of the project, but it is not anticpated
that it will be completed before the winter of this year. If that is the case we
probably would not begin the excavation until spring because of the frozen condition
of the soil which can make excavation extremely difficult. In most cases it would be
best to wait for spring so the grounds thaw and working conditions are more
acceptable.
The properties need to be resampled so we can more accurately estimate how much
soil requires removal. In many instances we only have one sample from one
location indicating a potential contamination problem. We need to take more
samples around that location to confirm whether there is a contamination problem
and to define the extent of that contamination before deciding if action is required.
Comment 3: One commenter stated that as long as there is an EPA presence in the area property
values will be subjected to a lower than warranted value. They go on to say that if
Alternative 3 were to be implemented and completed the "cloud of doubt" would be
removed from the area and property values would again represent actual market
values. The health and welfare of the people in the area, as well as the City of
Wyandotte would be protected.
Response 3: The comment is acknowledged.
Comment 4: One commenter asked about Ecorse Creek pollution and cleanup in the summer
They stated that the smell coming from the creek in the summer is pretty bad, and to
possibly have the high spots in the creek dredged to allow fresh water to flow back
up the creek might be beneficial.
They also asked why the contaminated properties are just not bought by the City
and developed into a golf course or park, as has been done at other contaminated
areas.
31
-------
Response 4: U.S. EPA has sampled the creek, both upstream and adjacent to the Site, and have
found contaminants in the sediments and surface water. However, the same
contaminants found adjacent to the Site were found upstream, indicating that the
contamination is not from the Site, but is probably from some other source.
Therefore, the creek will not be addressed as part of this cleanup effort.
U.S. EPA has made a strong commitment to employing cleanups which are
permanent solution to contamination problems. By leaving contamination in place
the cost of the remedy would rise because of the costs associated with constructing
a soil cover over the contamination, maintaining the cover system, and
implementing deed restrictions to ensure no one digs on the property in the future.
In addition, leaving the contamination in the middle of a residential area might have
a continuing detrimental effect on property values. We believe excavation and off-
site disposal is the most cost effective solution to the problem.
Comment 5: One commenter stated that the Army Corps of Engineers ("U.S. ACE")has
juridiction waterward of the Ordinary High Water Mark, and in any adjacent
wetlands for that portion of the Ecorse River which is east of the Detroit and
Toledo Railroad tracks. If the site clean-up may affect the course, capacity, or
condition of the Ecorse River downstream cf vVucr*. ilio work is occurring, they
advise that U.S. EPA contact the U.S. ACE Detroit office prior to commencement
of work for possible permit requirements.
Response 5: U.S. EPA will comply with any substative, applicable, or relevant and appropriate
permit requirements the U.S. ACE may have for any work occurring on-site, and
will obtain all necessary permits for work occurring off-site. We will coordinate
with the appropriate office of the U.S. ACE.
Comment 6: One commenter stated that they agree with Alternative 3. They stated that they
tried to sell their home and the offer they received came in $33,000 below the
estimated value. They would prefer to get rid of the problem and be in the postion
someday getting back to their normal lives.
Response 6: The comment is acknowledged.
Comment 7: One commenter asked how hazardous is the surface water in the creek? He
expressed concern over children consuming the water. He went on to express
concern over the contaminants entering the creek via surface water run-off from the
site.
Response 7: Surface water run-off of is a potential migration pathway for contaminants from the
site. Through the selected cleanup, and off-site disposal of the contaminated soils,
the threat of site-related contaminants entering the creek should be minimized. It
32
-------
should be noted that the creek had been sampled as part of the Remedial
Investigation and it was found that sources other than this Site are probably
contributing contamination to the creek. Risks to children exposed to the surface
water and sediments from the creek were'evaluated as part of the risk assessment
process. No unacceptable risks were found. U.S. EPA defines an unacceptable risk
as an increased risk greater than 1 x 10"4 to 1 xlO"6 of an individual getting cancer
(or 1 in 10,000 to 1, in 1,000,000). For non-carcinogens it is defined as a Hazard
Index greater than 1.0. For children at this site the carcinogenic risk for exposure to
surface water and sediments was calculated to be 8 x 10"8 and 3 x 10"7, respectively.
The non-carcinogenic risk was 0.001 and 0.0001 for surface water and sediments,
respectively.
Comment 8: One commenter asked whether we know exactly which properties will be excavated.
Response 8: At this point we know that 470/80, 471, and the empty lot north of 470/480 will be
excavated. The park area will also be excavated. On these properties we have
sufficient data to justify the need to excavate. Other properties along North Drive
and the property on Oak Street require addtional sampling to determine whether
excavation is warranted. We anticipated completing that sampling by the end of the
fall of 1996.
Comment 9: One commenter asked if work was going to continue on his property on Oak Street
while we go through the remedy selection process.
Response 9: The work in question, excavating contaminated soils from underneath the back
porch at the residence on Oak Street, was post-poned until the homeowner tore
down the porch as he agreed. The commenter has been informed that he should
remain in touch with the On-Scene Coordinator to keep them appraised of his
schedule so the cleanup can be coordinated.
33
-------
-------
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
34
-------
-------
PACE NO. 1
AOMINSTRAIIVE RECORD IKJEX
CERCLA EHERGENCY REHCVAL PROGRAM
NCRIH DRIVE SITE
1/rWCOTIE. HI
fiat/
FRAME PACES
DATE
90/01/22
TITLE
Action HanrandM • Conf (nation of Verbal Approval
for Rony*l Action at the North Drive Site.
uymfctte, Michigan (Site/Spill ID KU) - The
proposed response act Ions Involve placing a tenporary
cover of 6 or rare inchat of clean soi I over areas
Utere ferric fcrrocyaniofe and other related cyenide
caipaiYb have been exposed and replacing the
sicfcualk and driveway* Midi dag Uwrt the
contmlnated soil i* exposed. Verbal afproval for the
time-critical roioval MM given on Oecoifcer 1, 19W.
AUTHOR
RECIPIENT
CATEGORY
DCQJtNl
OOOHNI ITPE NLM1ER
Robert U. Boutuj
U.S. EPA
Robert J. Bowdon
U.S. EPA
Decision Docurcnts MunDrtrdJti
000001
1 89/11/22 MOID from ATSDR in response to U.S. EPA's request to
review ornlytical data. The MOD states that the
levels of cyonide ford in the soil do present a
serios health threat and that steps to eliminate
direct contact with the ccntuninated soil should be
token imnodiately. ATSDR conarred that a tenporary
cover with 6 inches of clean soil-would remove the
igmediate threat until a more extensive investigation
has taken place.
Dcnlse Jordan-1zagjirre Bcb Boulie
AISDR U.S. EPA
Other Information
COC007
-------
-------
UPDATE *1 TO
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
FOR
NORTH DRIVE SITE ,
Wyandotte, MI
December 20, 1990
C
r
C
DATE AUTHOR
09/24/90 Weston, Inc.
Bowlua, R.»
U.S. EPA
11/19/90 Environmental Jordan-
AJ./J.VF/- ,.,,_,_ Tr.aauir
Misc.
Health
Scientist,
ATSDR
Bionetics,
Inc.
Izaquirre.D.
ATSDR
Bowlus, R.
U.S. EPA
Extent of
Contaminat ion
Study /Photographs
Prussian Blue
Extent of
Contamination
Study, Wayne
County
Aerial
Environmental
Photographic
Interpretations
Vol. 1
Vol. 2
PAflES
51
6
17
3
-------
UPDATE *2 TO
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
FOR
NORTH DRIVE SITE
Wyandotte, MI
February 13, 1991
DATE AUTHOR RECIPIENT TITLE/DESCRIPTION PAGES
01/23/91 Fenner, F., File X-Ray Diffraction 4
E & E Analysis
-------
UPDATE *3 TO
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
FOR
NORTH DRIVE SITE
Wyandotte, MI
February 22, 1991
DATE AUTHOR RECIPIENT TTTLE/DESCRIPTION PAGES
02/14/91 Bowlus, B., File Short Community 2
Reiser, S., Relations Plan
U.S. EPA
f
f
-------
DATE
AUTHOR
UPDATE »4 TO
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
FOR
NORTH DRIVE SITE
Wyandotte, MI
April 22, 1991
RECIPIENT TITLE/DESCRIPTION
02/22/91 Urda-Thompson, Heaton, D.
03/15/91
A., TAT
Hurst, P.
U.S. EPA
03/28/91 Hurst, P.,
U.S. EPA
U.S. EPA
Bowlus, R.
U.S. EPA
Bowlus, R.
U.S. EPA
Letter Report
Regarding Sampling
Toxicity Infor-
mation for
Prussian Blue
Review It Summary
of Toxicity
Information
PAGES
19
13
r
-------
f,
UPDATE »5 TO'
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
FOR
NORTH DRIVE SITE
Wyandotte, MI
May 31. 1991
DATE AUTHOR RECIPIENT TITLE/DESCRIPTION PAGES
07/11/90 Kreindler, C,, Heaton, D., Site Assessment 17
Doyle, W., U.S. EPA for Prussian Blue
Weston
r.
f
-------
fe
DATE
02/00/88
AUTHOR
04/00/89
Harkins, S.,
Truesdale, R.,
Hill, R.,
Research Tri-
angle Institute
Whiffin, R.,
Rush, R. J.,
Spice, I.E.
UPDATE »6 TO
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
FOR
NORTH DRIVE SITE
Wyandotte, MI
August 27, 1991
RECIPIENT TITLE/DESCRIPTION
U.S. EPA
PAGES
7-8/00/89 Moore, T.
10/00/89
Mclaughlin,
F., Analytic
& Biological
Labs.
O'Mara, M.,
Western Sper
01/00/90 MGP Update
05/16/90 Hesford, M., Bowlus, B.
PEI Associates U.S. EPA
U.S. Production of 405
Manufactured Gases:
Assessment of Past
Disposal Practices
Journal Article,
"Coal Gas Legacy"
Journal Article, 12
Managing the Gas-
light Legacy
Initial Sampling 38
Results
Publication Article, 7
Research Program-
Cyanide Compounds in
Leachate...
Analysis of the 55
Waste Material
"Prussian Blue"
-------
DATE
AUIHQB
08/29/91 Urda-Thompson, Heaton, D.,
A., E & E U.S. EPA
08/30/91 Urda-Thompson, Heaton, D.,
A., E & E U.S. EPA
UPDATE »7 TO
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
FOR
NORTH DRIVE SITE
Wyandotte, MI
September 6, 1991
RECIPIENT TITLE/DESCRIPTION
Letter Report
Letter Report
PAGES
15
116
r
-------
UPDATE *8 TO
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
FOR
NORTH DRIVE SITE
Wyandottc, MI
April 30, 1992
DATE AUTHOR RECIPIENT TITLE/DESCRIPTION
04/27/92 Bowlus, R., Ullrich, D,, Action Memorandum-
U.S. EPA U.S. EPA 12 Month Exemption
c
f
-------
UPDATE tt9 TO
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
FOR
NORTH DRIVE SITE
Wyandotte, MI
July 2, 1992
DATE AUTHOR RECIPIENT TTTLE/PESCRIPTIOH PAGES
06/12/92 Ecology & Heaton, D., Field Sampling Plan 51
Environment, U.S. EPA
Inc.
c
-------
DATE
AUTHOR
UPDATE «10 TO
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
FOR
NORTH DRIVE SITE
Wyandottc, MI
October 21, 1992
RECIPIENT TITLE/DESCTTPTTON
10/08/92 Brown, K.,
U.S. EPA
Buckley, B.,
U.S. EPA
Report-"North
Drive Specialized
Cyanide Analysis"
PAGES
22
C
-------
AR
DATE
AUTHQB
UPDATE »11 TO
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
FOR
NORTH DRIVE SITE
Wyandotte, MI
December 14, 1993
RECIPIENT TITLE/DESCRIPTION P_AGE2
07/13/92 Langer, H.
E & E
10/20/92 Langer, H.,
E & E
Buckley, R.
U.S. EPA
Heaton, D.,
U.S. EPA
Investigation of
White Material
at 455 North Drive
Letter Report
12
c
05/27/93 Thrasher, D. , Pfundheller,
E & E J., U.S. EPA
05/27/93 Thrasher, D. , Pfundheller,
E & E J. , U.S. EPA
05/28/93 Thrasher, D. , Pfundheller,
E & E J., U.S. EPA
08/13/93 Johnson, B., Adamkus, V. ,
ATSDR U.S. EPA
09/09/93 Heithmar, E., Buckley, R.,
U.S. EPA U.S. EPA
09/24/93 Buckley, R., Muno, W. ,
U.S. EPA U.S. EPA
09/30/93 Thrasher, D. , Pfundheller,
E & E J., U.S. EPA
Letter Report for 70
December 4, loo?
Sampling Project
Letter Report for 45
January 7, 1993
Sampling Project
Letter Report for 46
April 9, 1993
Sampling Project
Public Health 22
Advisory
North Drive Speci- 14
alized Cyanide
Analyses II Report
Action Memorandum- 37
Ceiling Increase
.Letter Report
(Data Summary for
1989-1993)
41
-------
UPDATE t»12 TO
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
FOR
NORTH DRIVE SITE
Wyandotte, MI
January 11, 1994
CA1E AUTHOR RECIPIENT TITLE/DESCRIPTION PAGES
12/15/93 Buckley, R., Muno, W., Action Memorandum- 60
U.S. EPA U.S. EPA Ceiling Increase
-------
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD
NORTH DRIVE/LOWER ECORSE CREEK DUMP SITE
WYANDOTTE, MICHIGAN
UPDATE #13
05/22/96
:OCI OA'E
RECIPIENT
TITLE/DESCRIPTION
PA6ES
[ 00/00/00 nichiqin Departient Public
of Public Health
2 00/00/00 U.S. EPA
Fill
Infonational Bulletin: 'Health Risks froi
Cyanide Exposure in tht North Drive Area,
Kyandotti'
Preliminary Results of Testing at the North
Drive Site
M
3 02/00/38 Harkins, S., et al.; U.S. EPA
ResNrch Trianfle
Institute
4 04/00/89 Hhiffen, R., et al.
5 OS/00/3? Electric Po«er
Rese.'cn Institute
e 01.'00/90 Sas Research
Institute
7 02/00/90 U.S. EPA/OERR U.S. EPA
9 07/03/91 U.S. EPA/USHER U.S. EPA
9 01/27/93 U.S. EPA Fill
10 08/13/93 Johnson, B., Adarius, V., U.S.
USDHHS/USPHS/ATSOR EPA
11 09/29/93 Sclabassi, N.
Public
12 10/19/93 Johnson, B., Ullrich, 0., U.S.
USDHHS/USPHS/ATSDR EPA
13 10/29/93 Prendiville, T., File
U.S. EPA
Technical Report: 'U.S. Protection of 411
Manufactured 6am: Assessment of Put
Disposal Practices'
Journal Article: 'Coal 6as Legacy* (Civil 2
Engineering)
Publication: '(Imaging tht Gaslight Legacy* 12
(EPRI Journal Reprint)
Article: 'Characterization of Cyanide in tht 7
Leachates of H6P Site Hastes* (R6P Update
113)
Buick Reference Fact Shttti 'Real Estatt 5
Acquisition Procedures for USAGE Projects'
(Publication 9333.3-41/FS)
Nesorandui re: Policy ToMrds toners of 8
Residential Property at Suptrfund Sitn
(OSHER Directivt 9834.6)
Hazardous Site Control Division: Eiaeples of &
Residential Sites
ATSDR Public Htaltk Advisory for the North 22
Drive Duep Sitt i/Covtr Letter
Nevspaper Article: 'Help Sought: Dingell 1
Hants EPA to Rove 'Eiptditiously' on Cyanide
Laced Lots' (Hens-Herald)
Letter re: ATSDR Health Advisory on the North 4
Drive Duep Site •/Attached Chronology
Telephone Conversation Record i/A. Pondonski 1
(USE?A) re: North Drive Toiicity Tests
-------
DOCi C;;E AUTHOR
RECIPIENT
TITLE/DESCRIPTION
14 10/" 33 Sirna, D., U.3. E-i Aiiressees
•eicrjnd-ji -•: Kalti-fledia Screening
I-seectisn Checklist for BASF Hyandctte
e:
15 11/C4/9! Bell, i., U.S. EPA
16
17
19
19
20
11/08/93
11/09/93
11/09/93
11/10/93
11/24/93
Broun, It., U.S.
EPA/TSS/EHSL
Prendiville, T.,
U.S. EPA
Prtndiville, T.,
U.S. EPA
Prendivillt, T.,
U.S. EPA
U.S. EPA/Region 5
Regional Decision
Team
Prendivi
U.S. EPA
File
Filt
File
U.S. EPA
Keidan, T., U.S. EPA Heiorandum re: Sitt Name Change froi North
Drivt to Loner Ecorse Crick Dump
Ffll Transmission Fonurding Attached 'North 24
Drive Specialized Cyanide Analyses' Report
Handwritten Notes rt: ECAO Conference Call 2
"1 12/00/93 Xeumann, P.
22 12/00/93
23 12/00/93
U.S. EPA/OPA
Domriver Citizens
for a Safe
Environ tent
24 12/05/93 Sclabassi, If.
25 12/08/93 U.S. EPA/OEM
26 12/09/93 Clark, J., U.S. EPA
27 12/16/93
28 12/16/93
Ecology and
Environment, Inc.
Nelson, J., U.S. EPA
Seneral Counsel
Public
Public
Public
Public
U.S. EPA
Prwdiville, T.,
U.S. EPA
U.S. EPA
Telephone Conversation Record •/!. Iran
(USEPA), et al., rti (Ml Analym
Handwitten Notts fret Conversatioi «/IHSL
Personnel
ROT Briefing on the Loner Ecorst Creek Ouip
(North Drive) Site */Attactuents
Nevspaper Article: '4 Ooimriver Sites Rank
Along Worst: DNft Targets Contaminated Areas'
(NcMS-Hcrald)
Superfund Fact Sheet: 'North Drive Site1
TM Nets Reports: 'North irive Cyaniet...'
and 'Hyandottt* (Bowrmr Diieft)
Newspaper Articltt *Cltuip Sets Soing on
Contaminated Block* (Heritage Sunday)
Nomination Packagt for am ATSDR Health
Advisory Criteria Sitt for tht Loner Ecorst
Creek Dump Sitt
Memorandum rtt Itrivatiom of Cyanidt Cleanup
Levels for tht Emergency Action at tht North
Drive Site
Extent of Contamination Sample Plan for tht
North Drive Sitt (FINAL DRAFT)
2
4
37
104
LaskoHski, S., U.S. Memorandum rt: Legal Authority to Replace
EPA/Region 3 Demolished Buildings at Suptrfund Sites
59
12
-------
DC: i
AUTHOR
TITlE/D£SCiU?T;0!<
T'au!:, j., J.S. £PA
Hemorand.i rg: Regie* 5 Regional Decision
Teat s Approval far < RI/FS First Start at
the Nort.*'. I'i^
30 00/00/c< Thels, T., et al.
Michigan Ocparticnt
of Public Health
31 01/07/94
32 01/20/94 Sclabassi, N.
33 01/21/94
34 02/14/94
35 02/16/94
34 02/23/94
37 03/21/94
39 04/07/94
39 05/11/94
40 06/02/94
41 06/08/94
HilliaM, R.,
USDHHS/USPHS/ATSW
Ecology and
Environment, Inc.
Carpenter, 6., HDNR
Haughan, D.,
Battelle Pacific
Northmt Laborator-
ies
Brom, K., U.S.
EPA/ORD
Broun, K., U.S.
EPA/ORD
Prendiville, T.,
U.S. EPA
CM2HH111
Nilliais, R.
Vyandotte Health and
Safety Officials
Public
Runo, «., U.S. EPA
U.S. EPA
Hyandotte Resident
Brom, K., U.S. EPA
Prendiville, T.,
U.S. EPAyReoion S
Prendiville, T.,
U.S. EPA/Reo,ion S
Filt
U.S. EPA
Public
Journal Article: 'Leachate Characteristics 3
and Composition of Cjra/iide Bearing Mastes
frot Manufactured Sas Plants' (Environ. Sci.
Technol.)
Notice re; Concentrations of Cyanide in the 1
North Drive Area
Ncuspaptr Article: 'Surface Cyanide Poses • 1
Lns Risk: EPA Issues Precaution! to Hock
Resident!1 (Nm-tierali1)
Letter ret Soil Cyanide Actioa levels at tit 1
North Drive Dunp Site
Coieunity Relations Plan for the North Drive 36
Site
Letter re: Results of Soil Saaple Analysis 2
FAI Transmission Fonarding Attached February 4
22, 1994 neiorandui re: Conents on the
'Quality Assurance Project Plan for the North
Drive NPL Site Cyanide Characterization;
Total, Head Acid Dissociable, and
Bioavailable* Report
Report: 'Duality Assurance Project Plan for 169
the North Drive NPl Site Cyanide
Characterization; Total, Heak Acid
Dissociable, and Bioavailable' i/Cover Letter
HeeorandiM re: Analytical Results of North 2
Drive Soil Samples
Telephone Conversation Record •/?. Suria 1
(USCPA) re: North Drive Reeoval
Health and Safety Plan 43
Neospaper Article: 'Test of Endurance: For 2
One Hyandotte Neighborhood, Being a Superfund
Site is Inconvenient* (Detroit Free Press)
-------
DOCI
RECIPIENT
zssssziss
«: 06/14 74 Prenc./.lie, T., File
U.S. E?A
Te!e:nore C:"versation Record * ".
loaer £::rse *nd Associated S.tes
43 06/15/94 Broun, K., U.S. Prendiville, TM
EPA/ORD U.S. EPA/Region 5
44 08/15/94 Prendiville, T., File
U.S. EPA
45 08/19/94 Clark, J., U.S. EPA Prendiville, T.,
U.S. EPA
44 08/25/94 CH2J1 Hill
U.S. EPA
47 08/29/94 Killiams, J., CH2H Prendiville, T.,
Hill U.S. EPA
48 09/15/94 Prendiville, T., Nyandotte Residents
U.S. EPA
49 11/30/94 Kavanaugh, C. Public
50 12/00/94 CH2H Hill U.S. EPA
SI 02/09/95 Brow, 1., U.S. Prendiville, T.,
EPA/ORI . U.S. EPA/Region 5
52 03/08/95 Kavanauqh, C.
Public
53 03/16/95 Prendiville, T., Filt
U.S. EPA
54 03/23/95 Buckley, R., U.S. Prendiville, T.,
EPA U.S. EPA; et al.
Memorandum Forwarding Attachec !»cry.
-------
Ci DATE AUTHOR
RECIPIENT
PWES
'.* 03,24/95 ;rendmlle. T., ''.It
U.S. EPA
54 04/U/95 Prendiville, T., File
U.S. EPA
57 04/27/95 Prendiville, T., Ellison, R., U.S.
U.S. EPA EPA
SB 05/12/99 Ellison, R. and R. Addressees
Buckley, U.S. EPA
59 05/22/95 Ellison, R. and R. Addressees
Buckley, U.S. EM
60 04/00/95 QtUar, L,, Lockheed U.S. EPA
Environmental
Systets k Technoloq-
ies
lil 06/02/95 Ellison, R. and R. Addressees
Buckley, U.S. EPA
62 06/06/95 Ellison, R. and R. Addressees
Buckley, U.S. EPA
63 06/29/95 Prendiville, T. and Residents
D. Novak, U.S. EPA
Telephcr? '.:• ;•=.:••..:• =ecari . V Clirk
(USEPfi! r;: ;.j-.Cr >tai-i!iat:2.i
64 10/12/95 CH2H Hill
U.S. EPA
65 11/27/95 Ellison, R. and R. Addressees
Buckley, U.S. EPA
66 11/29/95 USDHHS/USPHS/ATSDR U.S. EPA
67 01/07/96 Kavanauqh, C. Public
68 01/31/96 CH2B Hill U.S. EPA
69 02/00/96 U.S. EPA/OPA Public
rittr '\::H •=: use at ..; :.:i/uUale 1
if Data Shcus s:jr;ficar.t Va'.i::l:t»
Heiorjndm re: Data Concirninq the 1
Correlation Betveen Total Cyanide and
Bioavailatale Cyanide (HANDWRITTEN)
POLREP 12 for the Oak Street Site 3
PULREP 13 for the Oak Street Site
Retorti 'Dtteriinatioii of Total, Htak Acid 117
Dissociable aod lioavailable Cyanide in North
Drive Oak Street Soil Saiples*
POLSEP 15 for the Oak Street Site
FQLREP 16 for the Oat Street Site
Letter re: Inforiation Update on Activities 2
at the North Drive Site
Final Reeedial Investigation Report (Volutes 923
1 and 2)
POLREP 17 and Final for the Oak Street Site 2
Public Health Assessment for the Loner Ecorse 61
Creek Duep
NiMspaper Article: 'Final Report Says Health 2
Threat Gone: Federal Cleanup (litigated
Cyanide Contamination* (Heritage Sunday)
Feasibility Study Report for the Lorn Ecorse 110
Creek Site
Fact Sheet: 'Remedial Investigation Completed 6
at the Lo«er Ecorse Creek Superfund Site'
-------
AUTHCP
T. 03/0i,;:?3 3r»rtji»ills. T., tn~::::•• '-.:.:.
U.S. EPA
71 03/11/94 Prendiville, T., Itwr.:-. •••:::•-. .e'.:=- -j; :.:;:en 5 I-^uiry Concerning
U.S. EPft Props--.• !e r!:;«ent
72 03/12/94 rubrouqh, D. *nd T. Residents Letter Spiriting Conents re: the February
Prendiville, U.S. 1996 U.S. E:A Fict Sheet and the Reiedial
EPA Investi;at.:n at the Loner Ecorse Creek Site
-------
i ill
£ * - -
5? 125
*2 *
* S 5
5 J S
5 * - I
s! I « =
-;!n
e
t •*
i j
11
ill!
: s i
fi «
VI
I
•
' S
2 S
1 j
i
s
e S S
?r £
••i
f III
i i
I II ! f
5
V
i IHiHI
: M«i!
cs 1 1 m
2
n
e g
i s
ii
II
z
i;
s c * c
i
z
i i
E i
t -
i i
§
1
r
F
D
i:
r r
J !
I i
o o
- e
i i i
3 2
! 5
r c
c
1 i
X X
: 5
-------
S i
*«lB
•• * •
vis
!§ ! !
JI5J 8
•
z
I
«• Is
I s
z j
K
i
^
iiii i
S Z 9
.
' i
f
5 '
I !
i I
5
I
S
X
9**4B*2B>QBO fi
^Hi iH'ff t
vs'i'fl.iiH g
I i I I I
W V M •
IS i 1 8 8
I
IE
IH
C X Z
2 3 a
sin
z « z „
355?
:! = f
* «
3 2
s s
c -
8 £
8
B
-------
• Q • • B
v 5
i i
e i
V P
!
K
£
B r
£ 8
•I
5
£
x
*
^
*
i
S
i I S5S
5 = 555
V* tft IA «N M
? Z 7 J 9
s§
i S S S
*us
» »
r i s
5.5
i
•» ••
1!
? * * ?
s fc 4 s
s • I a
SSSI
5|5!
II
11III ? 8 «!!
8 8 8 B 5 - > ! .
1
i i i i i
r ; * s
S* *
"I 6
»'« i
s i
i i
r 8s J =
• • e m w>
pni
li
s
it
E 8 p 11 ! S
«i ="=5
= S 5 =8
i ^
x < *
B ss
z «• »
:!
i i 8
g i
i i
i i
§
B!
s
IE
B
*
5
I
?,
i
i* S
: t
3
2
i
*
: i s: I
- t
o i
|
}
5
^
O
2
-------
K>
OVtt/M
DOC
M> Vot IIIIC
•IMW-
OMW4MUKV (BKlAMSKMf KIKIKM OUIOMCf OQOJ0CS
cat* Aulhn»
SUlut r»ett llci
HIS • RUCIICM OLNOf HH OULKMMTBI
tl M /IUINMS SI fiml
0*/OI/«» - MKSIO*. M
mm &JMEV
• tour. «.•
OUOI/M • MUM. os • MAMS. i ( AMV or rinti i»
MV. LAS *fC*»
• nOM. K.H./fAW
01/OI/M - MIM. OS* IMS04. • I AJ Of final HH
MVADA. IAS VfCAS
• MWI. K AMVf AW
111* •• Hit MHO* fOI fVAUJMINC XfcU> MSIf . tAUUKRV *MHM II/OI/M • OHM f |m|
«n»o». IHMD HMIMM I«OUMS u. i». ic. AM>
IHA/WW/1 0/ltM
III* • UMMM SAM* INS QJM.ITV AUUUKX UMTS OMK
III? t SOU SAMHINCQLMIIIY ASSJUKX IMTS OJMX
If* 4OO/4 H/
MI
111* II LAW S OLKOt ID »• OMRACI IMOMKHV MUOUM
•• m/fs • i*nd tMUKM*) fcciliiy
iwo u OMN& KM LMiNiHuia>fMZAwajB man sins
IWI II UiHN UMWLCIIIN. AM) fVAltNIICH<• MIMMUMC POUUIMM MM MtfTC WVOMi
SllfS
/Of SAtMf MKNUOMNI OH Id flml 110
rintl 471 1
tint) MO i
"ml M i
"MI •> i
ll/OI/M
o*/oi/*i • «cAte«. cc .11 AI
• KLMKJDH). | M /IMMI
II/OI/M • COOMN. | 1 . II Al /Ht,
• KUlW. MH/Wll
OV/OI/M • LUTRM. • | A*S.A UK/MS
• l«OinH. • I /Mil
M/oi/ra - mmmi. A i . ll M /AM MMIIN
AuaciAifi. INC
- S*«WC. Of
o*/n/«r - UMMT. M i
, c
UMM «*1«O O I
If A/MO/) il/OUJ
ICA/MU/-M 4*/iu'i
II &AMKMV Of *M|OI OX PdCVlSIO*
CA1IKM4A IISI MQ«aillO«
1) OH«il AIIAO* Cll»D A«l AVAIIMUI IM
-------
l£
S *
J
i
*
1 If !!
| § : z ; *
g
5
$
i I?
e
o
*
a
a
i
1?!!
E
f
5
5
s
51
e • Q
Ii!
M:
Jl
I
SI
i §
§
i
§
: s
• VI
I I
h
i!
*• ^
s i=
s
s s
X V
r s
1 i 8 E
(hi
'•I'-
ll
8 &
S S S 2 S
£ 2 £
V V X
• * •
w Z M
S i § s
? 8 i s
E
&
I
II
I
I*
tt fi
I
s
e
2
3
V
i
2
r
t
I
Z
e e
* »
-------
z
i 5 I
2 «
5 !
«CI MM Al MA
I
B
§
I
i
e
i
I
f.
S $5
££ C £
5 > s
i M i
! f! 1
i
p
I
a
w
I
2
i
s
s
9
*s !i
i |S
I
2
!
r a?
i H
K
I
i
»
f I
2
- f i I
"!-8
Ti
I
j
tt
x •» •^
S * »
B r e 6 I ? j s
ffg8Se^£2=!Sl6S6BKS26
Hl'liil1 l;!l
II
6E
5 S
= '•* ,s
i ! 5 ^ 5
= P!
* ~ *
> i i
... •
E
o •
s
z
E C
..I.
J5 I >
1| =
ii
i
Q
§
e
; i
x r
2 2
f I
|
t
-------
5
i
*
a
3
O
I
32
i i
3 3
_ •
•
: i
i
i
1
C
I
a
3^33;
: : * 3 s
9 J J J ?
* * f f t
? ? « < 3
a a
3
M
! !
*
•!
1 iliii! !
i
i
.
<
„
;
X
!
I
i
.8
3
2 s
i i
S
i%
O
i
! I
iii! r III
i
9
3
0
<
8 -S
: a
53
S5
II
! 9
f i
S 8
0 8
S 5 •
55 I
ii i
ii 1
! i
!
f
~ Z ~ 5 ~ a s
S 5 i * 8 I "
§ ! I I! !
-------
"HsS
. * «
nit
If
i--5
. » 5 T
) G
5 • J 5
* f i
*. i
i!
f
j£
$
Wl
e
i
-rrrzsrr
i E i i 8 «• E I
- 3
w B
1
8
f
8 i
I
5
e>
>
i
S
s s
i i
S
o
I
i
I
IE
S
Q
i i i
i
X
3
|
-
5
X
a
s
-
i
X
3
^
£
••
X
3
•
c
i
X
3
*
E
i
z
s
*
-
1
r
3
A
O
i
X
3
!
0
f
X
!
1$
»
i
c
!
e
•
-------
= s « 0
* B = s
5 8 gg
i ^
li
| «
I
X
8
III
! i c
2&!
in
>
£ £
I!
i;
-,8 If
• 'Mil
! 1 "i
1 t! i
ff
2
* >
-
a
Q
I
i
M
w •
as
§!
e
M
$
2
5
!
a
f
i i
8 S
-8H
ibj
i
* 11
19.
I!l
M
« w
I
§
^
i
2
S S
I 5
fi
IE
is
I
>
s
t Z,
i i
S
i
I
M
W
*
»
8
M
«^
»
S
1
2
S
KMOll
I
•i
i s s J r
I P i 5 «
i I « S 5
5
ta»
r
i i i
r r x
23 3
I 5 :
-------
f
r 9
i
V
a
3 "
2 8
3
22
-------
mM
_ . i >
s f
8 8
1 f 1
f 6 f
I *
* * R
* &
• K
§ « 5 n
M It § *
E&l*
_ -
I
• S
e =
9
c
i
i
2
5
ft
K
I
J
S
i
I!
i i
i
y
r I I
I
t
2 i
s ,
i
K
S
i
5
z
5
x r
2 2
: I
c c
i
n
* r
-------
FMZ to n
OVI4/M
•INXX-
DOC
K> vol nil*
Inlacamil
n
t»'«
suiut fagtt llei Alliclimilt
ir*m/if* MM*
/^oo
>s^
11 mmiM cuowci 04 ratmiiMiv u»o«i«ic
ii/ii/M - rauai. i •
Ol/lt/M - FOIiat. I H
flnil
11ml
II 1
II 1
•• select lui ol Ma*ci*/uecltlcn Oocumtl
•000 M IMUIIM (LNIMICI (M»I>«HM> UttCIKNOF •UON
•001 UMNAAJJiaAMCISKMMMX O4 KUHW KlfCIKM
U/I4/M - KHUN. | « /UHWI tliwl to 1
M/I4/M • KIlfAMlOl. M /COTt I WQ IMW4II OMf IIIMl > 1
ir*«M«»mu,.
-------
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD
NORTH DRIVE/LOWER ECORSE CREEK DUMP SITE
WYANDOTTE, MICHIGAN
UPDATE #14
O6/19/96
DRAFT
DOCI
AUTHOR
RECIPIENT
TITLE/DESCRIPTION
====::=========::
P.46ES
1 04/00/96 U.S. EPA
Public
Fact Sheet: 'Proposed Plan for Reiedial
Action at the Loner Ecorse Creek Superfund
Site"
2 05,'Oe/96 Tucker, R., U.S. U.S. EPA
Any Corps of
Engineers/Detroit
District
3 05/13/96 Concerned Citi:ens U.S. EPA
4 05/23/94 Yarbrough, D., C3R U.S. EPA
5 04/13/96 Hilliais, J., CH2N Prendivil'.e, T.,
Hill U.S. EPA
Letter re: USACOE's Couents on the Proposed 3
PUn
Four Public Couent Letters re: the
Recoaiended Alternative Presented in the
Proposed Plan (PORTIONS OF THIS DOCUHE.NT HAVE
BEEN REDACTED)
Transcript of May 9, 1994 Proposed Plan/
Public Coaient Period Meeting
FAI Transiission Forwarding June 13, 1996
CH2R Hill Heiorandui re: Risk Due to Pet
Consumption of Suip Hater
62
-------
-------
-------
------- |