00351 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
OCLC20916702
GROUND-WATER FLOW AND QUALITY NEAR THE
UPPER GREAT LAKES CONNECTING CHANNELS,
MICHIGAN
Administrative Report
Prepared for the
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
-------
, <-• . lo • --i- x
r-r •*"•", Library,
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
GROUND-WATER FLOW AND QUALITY NEAR THE UPPER GREAT LAKES CONNECTING CHANNELS,
MICHIGAN
by J.L. Gillespie, D.H. Dumouchelle, and T.R. Cunmings
Administrative Report
Prepared for the
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Lansing, Michigan
1988
-------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
DONALD PAUL HODEL, Secretary
U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
Dallas L. Peck, Director
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
-------
CONTENTS
Page
Abst fact —————————————————————————————————————— 1
Introduction ———————————————————————————————————————————————— 2
Purpose and scope 2
Description of study areas —• • 2
Methods of data collection and analysis • 4
Site-location system • • 5
Acknowledgments 5
Geologic setting —————————————————————————————————— ^
Strat igraphy 6
St. Clair-Detroit River study area 6
St. Marys River study area 12
Stratigraphic relations from seismic studies 16
Ground-water flow 19
Altitude of water table and direction of ground-water flow 19
Ground-water discharge 21
Hydrogeologic units 21
Shallow glacial unit 21
Glacial-bedrock interface unit — :- 21
Bedrock unit ————————™**——————————————————————— 23
Estimated rates • 23
Shallow glacial unit 23
Glacial-bedrock interface and bedrock units 30
Discharge to connecting channels 32
Ground water flow to connecting channels from tributaries 32
Identification of areas suitable for simulation of ground-
water flow 35
Detroit River study area 35
St. Clair River study area 35
Ground-water quality 36
Study areas ————————————————————————————————— 38
St. Marys River study area 38
St. Clair River study area 39
Lake St. Clair study area 39
Detroit River study area • • 40
Transport of chemical substances to connecting channels by
ground water 41
Relation of land use to the chemical characteristics of
ground water 41
Summary 44
References 45
Definition of terms 48
Appendixes 50
A. Quality assurance/quality control plan for study A-l
B. Geologic sections B-l
C. Seismic profiles C-l
D. Tables of data • D-l
E. Identification of waste sites • E-l
Waste-site tables • E-3
Waste-site ranking system E-50
System design E-50
Ranks and site scores E-58
111
-------
ILLUSTRATIONS
Page
Plates 1-10. Maps showing:
1. Water-table configuration in central St. Clair
and northern Macomb Counties ----------------- In pocket
2. Water-table configuration in central Macomb and
southern St. Clair Counties ---------------- In pocket
3. Water-table configuration in southern Macomb and
northern Wayne Counties ---------------------- In pocket
4. Water-table configuration in southern Wayne and
northern Monroe Counties ------------------- In pocket
5. Water-table configuration in Chippewa County --- In pocket
6. Confirmed or possible ground-water-contamination
sites, and areas of ground-water discharge to
connecting channel — central St. Clair and
northern Macomb Counties --------------------- In pocket
7. Confirmed or possible ground-water-contamination
sites, and areas of ground-water discharge to
connecting channel — central Macomb and
southern St. Clair Counties ------------------ In pocket
8. Confirmed or possible ground-water-contamination
sites, and areas of ground-water discharge to
connecting channel — southern Macomb and
northern Wayne Counties -------------------- In pocket
9. Confirmed or possible ground-water-contamination
sites, and areas of ground-water discharge to
connecting channel — southern Wayne and
northern Monroe Counties -------------------- In pocket
10. Confirmed or possible ground-water-contamination
sites, and areas of ground-water discharge to
connecting channel — Chippewa County ---------- In pocket
Figure 1. Map showing location of Upper Great Lakes connecting
channels study areas --------------------------------- 3
2. Map showing bedrock geology of St. Glair-Detroit River
A IT 6 A —••«»-••«• ««— • W««HH. *»•***« «»«•»« ««*«v_.__«i _•>••
3. Generalized geologic section showing dip of bedrock and
relation of bedrock and glacial deposits from Lake
Erie to Lake Huron ----------------------- - ------------- 10
IV
-------
ILLUSTRATIONS— Continued
Page
Figure A. Map showing surficial glacial features of St. Glair-Detroit
River study area ---------------------------------------- 11
5. Map showing locations of geologic sections in the
St. Clair-Detroit River study area ---------------------- 13
6. Map showing bedrock geology of St. Marys River study area - 14
7. Map showing locations of geologic sections in the
St. Marys River study area ------------------------------ 15
8. Continuous seismic-reflection profile in the St. Clair
River near Marine City ----------- - ---- ----- ------------- 17
9. Continuous seismic-reflection profile in southern Lake
St. Clair showing lacustrine deposits overlying till ---- 18
10. Continuous seismic-reflection profile in the Detroit River
near Belle Isle showing Pleistocene lacustrine deposits
overlying glacial till --------------------------------- 20
11. Generalized ground-water flow paths to connecting
channels ------------- • ---------------------------------- 22
12. Map showing location of surface-water gaging stations in
southeastern Michigan ----------------------- • ----- • — • 27
13. Generalized geologic sections underlying connecting
Cft fill H6 A. S ""*""* •"""* •«—«^— •«••«"«•»—••—•*•— •W'— •«••—•»»•«»»«»— •^-—M— .«_«.*»«»«•»««•*»*»«>•*».«-««.•.»«•..»«. j J_
14. Geologic section A-A1 , near Port Huron, Michigan ---------- B-l
15. Geologic section B-B', near Marysville, Michigan ----------- B-2
16. Geologic section C-C', near Port Huron, Michigan ---------- B-3
17. Geologic section D-D', near Marine City, Michigan --------- B-4
18. Geologic section E-E1, near Fraser, Michigan -------------- B-5
19. Geologic section F-F', in Detroit, Michigan --------------- B-6
20. Geologic section G-G', in Detroit, Michigan --------------- B-7
21. Geologic section H-H', near Wyandotte, Michigan ----------- B-8
22. Geologic section I -I1, near Flat Rock, Michigan ----------- B-9
23. Geologic section J-J1, south of Rockwood, Michigan -------- B-10
24. Geologic section K-K1, in Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan ------ B-ll
v
-------
ILLUSTRATIONS— Cont inued
Page
Figure 25. Geologic section L-L1 , near Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan ---- B-12
26-28. Maps showing:
26. Location of USGS seismic profiles in the St. Clair
0 4 *T.A^ _J — I Tl_ _ - • _T •! •' -------- _ - __ • -~>u -*- .•-» ^ __ ._ .01
River —————————— ——•—•————————«•—«— w» J.
27. Location of USGS seismic profiles on Lake St. Clair- C-2
28. Location of USGS seismic profiles on the Detroit
D ^ 1*A^ - ^_ — B^^^ MB M, /"* ^
mver —————————————————————————————————— (_,— j
29-42. Seismic profiles showing:
29. USGS line 5 A-A1, St. Clair River ------------------ C-4
30. USGS line 7 A-A'-A", St. Clair River -------------- C-5
31. USGS line 12 A-A1 , St. Clair River ---------------- C-6
32. USGS line 20 A-A'-A", St. Clair River ------------ C-7
33. USGS line 20 B-B'-B", St. Clair River ------------- C-8
34. USGS line 20 C-C'-C", St. Clair River ------------- C-9
35. USGS line 14 A-A1, Lake St. Clair ------------------ C-10
36. USGS line 14 B-B' , Lake St. Clair ------------------ C-ll
37. USGS line 14 C-C1 , Lake St. Clair ------------------ C-12
38. USGS line 22 A-A1, Detroit River ------------------ C-13
39. USGS line 22 B-B1, Detroit River ------------------- C-14
40. USGS line 22 C-C1, Detroit River ------------------- C-15
41. USGS line 22 D-D1, Detroit River ------------------- C-16
42. USGS line 23 A-A', Detroit River ------------------- C-17
VI
-------
TABLES
Page
Table 1. Description of geologic units in St. Glair-Detroit River
study area ———————————————————————————————————————— 8
2. Description of geologic units in St. Marys River
study area ————————————————————————————— 12
3. Characteristics of stream basins 24
4. Ground-water contribution to connecting channels 28
5. Estimates of ground-water flow to connecting channels
from tributaries —————————————————————————————— 33
6. Land use in the ground-water-discharge areas 42
7. Selected data for wells installed by the U.S. Geological
Survey ———————————————————————————————— D—1
8. Concentrations of volatile hydrocarbons in ground water
discharging to the Upper Great Lakes connecting channels D-6
9. Concentrations of base neutral, acid extractable, and
chlorinated neutral extractable compounds in ground water
discharging to the Upper Great Lakes connecting channels D-10
10. Concentrations of trace metals and other dissolved
substances in ground water discharging to the
Upper Great Lakes connecting channels D-20
11. Underground injection sites in Macomb, Monroe, Oakland,
St. Clair, and Wayne Counties E-3
12. Confirmed or possible ground-water-contamination sites in
Macomb County E-5
13. Confirmed or possible ground—water—contamination sites in
Monroe County ——————————————————————————— E—13
14. Confirmed or possible ground-water-contamination sites in
Oakland County ———————————————— ____________________ E—15
15. Confirmed or possible ground-water-contamination sites in
St. Clair County ————————————————————————————— E—17
16. Confirmed or possible ground-water-contamination sites in
Wayne County E-21
17. Confirmed or possible ground-water-contamination sites in
VII
-------
TABLES—Cont inued
Page
18. Nature of contamination at waste sites in each ground-
water-discharge area E-35
19. Rating features, ranges, and rating values of waste-site
ranking system E-51
20. Rating features and ranges, and rating values added to
HO AOTTP _______________ __ 17 <^/«
UClnDl 11* —————————————————————————————— &—}if
21. Definition of ranges for priority-pollutant and inorganic-
contaminant features of waste-site ranking system £-55
22. Summary of waste-site ranking system and modified
DRASTIC scores E-57
23. Ranks and scores for confirmed or possible ground-water-
contamination sites E-59
Vlll
-------
CONVERSION FACTORS AND ABBREVIATIONS
For the convenience of readers who may prefer to use metric
(International System) units rather than the inch-pound units used in this
report, values may be converted by using the following factors:
Multiply inch-pound unit By
inch (in.) 25.4
foot (ft) 0.3048
mile (mi) 1.609
square mile (mi2) 2.590
foot per mile (ft/mi) 0.1894
foot per second (ft/s) 0.3048
foot per day (ft/d) 0.3048
cubic foot per second (ft3/s) 28.32
cubic foot per second per 10.93
square mile [ft3/s)/mi2]
gallon per day per square foot 40.7
[(gal/d)/fta]
ton per day 907.2
(ton/d)
To obtain metric unit
millimeter (mm)
meter (m)
kilometer (km)
square kilometer (km2)
meter per kilometer (m/km)
meter per second (m/s)
meter per day (m/d)
liter per second (L/s)
liter per second per
square kilometer [(L/s)/km2]
liter per day per square meter
kilogram per day
(kg/d)
Sea level; In this report "sea level" refers to the National Geodetic
Vertical Datum of 1929 (NGVD of 1929)—a geodetic datum derived from a general
adjustment of the first-order level nets of both the United States and Canada,
formerly called "Sea Level Datum of 1929".
-------
GROUND-WATER FLOW AND QUALITY NEAR THE UPPER GREAT LAKES CONNECTING
CHANNELS, MICHIGAN
By John L. Gillespie, Denise H. Dumouchelle, and T. Ray Cummings
ABSTRACT
The Upper Great Lakes connecting channels are the St. Marys, St. Clair
and Detroit Rivers, and Lake St. Clair. The effect of ground water on the
connecting channels is largely unknown, and the controls on its movement and
quality are undefined. Geologic, hydrologic, and environmental conditions
near the channels have been examined for this investigation. Included in the
study area is a 50-mile reach of channel beginning at Whitefish Bay and
extending to Neebish Island, and a 90-mile reach of channel between Port Huron
and Pointe Mouillee in Lake Erie.
Glacial deposits, which transmit most ground water to the channels, range
from less than 100 feet in thickness in the southern part of the St. Glair-
Detroit River area to more than 250 feet in thickness in the northern part.
Marine seismic surveys were used at some locations to determine the thickness
of deposits. Glacial deposits in the St. Marys River area range from less
than 10 feet to more than 300 feet in thickness. Permeable bedrock in the
southern reach of the Detroit River area and throughout most of the St. Marys
River area may contribute substantial amounts of water to the channels. Total
ground-water discharge to the channels, by area, is estimated as follows: St.
Marys area, 76 cubic feet per second; St. Clair area, 11 cubic feet per
second; Lake St. Clair area, 46 cubic feet per second; and Detroit area, 54
cubic feet per second.
More than 200 waste sites have been identified in an area extending
12 miles inland from the channels. Primarily these include landfills,
hazardous-waste disposal sites, and regulated-storage sites. Each of the
sites has been ranked using the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's
DRASTIC1 procedure.
Analyses of water from 31 wells, 25 of which were installed by the U.S.
Geological Survey, were made for organic compounds, trace metals, and other
substances. Volatile hydrocarbons, and base neutral, acid extractable, and
chlorinated neutral compounds were not detectable in water at most locations.
Concentrations of trace metals, however, were higher than common in natural
waters at some locations.
DRASTIC is an acronym for a rating system designed to help prioritize the
vulnerability of areas to ground-water contamination. The acronym stands for
the rating factors used in the system: J)epth to water, net Recharge, Aquifer
media, S_oil media, Typography, I_mpact of the vadose zone, and hydraulic
Conductivity of the aquifer.
-------
INTRODUCTION
The Upper Great Lakes Connecting Channels (UGLCC) are the St. Marys,
St. Clair and Detroit Rivers, and Lake St. Clair. These bodies of water
function as conduits for the waters of the upper lakes (Superior, Michigan,
and Huron) to drain into the lower lakes (Erie and Ontario).
The channels provide water for public supply for cities in the
southeastern corner of Michigan's Lower Peninsula and for the city of Sault
Ste. Marie in the Upper Peninsula. Water is also withdrawn for a variety of
other uses, the largest of which are industrial use and thermoelectric power
generation. Serious degradation of water of the channels, if it occurred,
could have a detrimental effect on public health, the regional economy, and
the biota of the channels. Protection of the water of the connecting channels
is, therefore, of major importance to citizens of both the United States and
Canada.
This investigation was undertaken as part of a larger study by United
States and Canadian government agencies to determine existing environmental
conditions, to assess problems, and to recommend remedial measures and
corrective actions where appropriate. Early in the planning stages of the
study it was recognized that such a comprehensive evaluation need to take into
account the role of ground water. Information on its movement and on its
transport of contaminants and other dissolved substances was inadequate.
Factors that affect ground-water quality had not been adequately assessed. A
main factor is the presence of more than 200 waste sites near the connecting
channels. The upward movement of chemical substances from deep geologic
strata, either from natural sources or from areas where deep injection of
wastes has occurred, also was recognized as a possibility.
Purpose and Scope
This report summarizes information collected by the U.S. Geological
Survey from April 1985 through September 1987 in areas bordering the Great
Lakes connecting channels in Michigan. Information on geology, ground-water
flow, waste sites, a waste-site ranking system, and land-use data are
included. Water-quality data collected by U.S. Geological Survey and similar
data from other sources are summarized. Needs for more detailed studies,
including mathematical modeling of ground-water flow, also have been
identified.
Description of Study Areas
Figure 1 shows the two major areas of investigation in this study. These
areas comprise zones extending 12 mi (miles) inland along the St. Marys River,
and along a reach of the St. Clair River, Lake St. Clair, and Detroit River
between Port Huron and Lake Erie. At places in this report, the major study
areas are referred to as "the St. Marys area" and as the "St. Glair-Detroit
area". To distinguish more precisely, the terms "St. Clair area" and "Detroit
area" are also used.
The St. Marys River begins at Whitefish Bay at an elevation of 602 ft
(feet) above sea level and flows to the Soo Locks. Downstream from the Locks,
the elevation of the river at Neebish Island is 582 ft above sea level. The
-------
SUPERIOR
85<>
Saint Marys River
study area
43°
St. Glair-Detroit River
study area
Base from U.S. Geological
Survey 1:500,000 map
Figure 1.—Location of Upper Great Lakes connecting channels
study areas.
-------
Waiska and Charlotte Rivers are the principal tributaries to the St. Marys
River on the United States side. The drainage basin for the river is about
350 mi2 (square miles). Elevation of the land surface ranges from about
580 ft above sea level at Neebish Island to 1,045 ft at Mission Hill; in most
of the area, the elevation of the land surface ranges from 600 to 750 ft.
About 22,000 people reside in the study area; 14,500 reside in Sault Ste.
Marie, the area's largest community.
The St. Clair-Detroit area, which begins at the northern edge of Port
Huron and extends generally southwestward to Pointe Mouillee, is about 90 mi
long. The elevation of the St. Glair River at Port Huron is 580 ft; the
elevation of the Detroit River at Point Mouillee is 572 ft. The St. Clair
River is about 35 mi long; the Detroit River is about 30 mi long. Principal
tributaries in the St. Clair-Detroit area in the United States are the Black,
Pine, Belle, Clinton, and Huron Rivers, and River Rouge. Elevation of the
land surface ranges from about 575 ft near Pointe Mouillee to about 660 ft
just west of Port Huron. In most of the area, the elevation of land surface
ranges from 580 to 625 ft. The study area includes parts of Macomb, Monroe,
Oakland, St. Clair, and Wayne Counties. About 2.5 million people reside in
the 900-mi2 area; it is the most populated and heavily industrialized in
Michigan.
Methods of Data Collection and Analysis
The study of ground water near the Upper Great Lakes connecting channels
is part of the larger joint United States-Canadian effort to evaluate
environmental conditions in channel areas. Methods and procedures were
established before initiating work, to ensure that investigators in both
countries obtained comparable and high-quality data. Quality-assurance and
quality-control procedures were determined by an international technical
committee. For ground-water investigations conducted by the U.S. Geological
Survey, the Survey and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency prepared a
quality assurance/quality control plan. The plan covered all aspects of
sample collection and analysis, and well-drilling techniques. A copy of the
approved plan is given in Appendix A.
-------
Site-Location System
The site-location number indicates the location of sites within the
rectangular subdivision of land with reference to the Michigan meridian and
base line. The first two segments of the site number designate township and
range, the third designates successively smaller subdivisions of the section
as shown below. Thus, a well designated as 4S10E30DBDB would be located
within a 2.5-acre tract, as indicated by the shaded area in section 30. The
number following the section subdivision identifies the wells in sequence.
Acknowledgments
Numerous agencies contributed data for use in this study. In addition to
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (USEPA) Waste Management and Water
Divisions, personnel of the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) in
the Environmental Response, Waste Management, Environmental Enforcement, and
Geological Survey provided waste-site information and water-well records.
Special acknowledgment is due Mr. Frank Belobraidich, Groundwater Quality
Division of MDNR, whose assistance early in the study made initial U.S.
Geological Survey work more productive than it otherwise would have been.
Acknowledgment also is made of the help received from the County Health
Departments in Chippewa, Macomb, Monroe, Oakland, St. Clair, and Wayne
Counties, who provided copies of well logs and chemical analyses of water.
Waste-site information and related data were also made available by the
Southeast Michigan Council of Governments.
-------
GEOLOGIC SETTING
Geology in the UGLCC study area consists of sedimentary rocks of
Precambrian and Paleozoic age overlain by unconsolidated Quaternary deposits.
Sedimentary rocks include sandstone, shale, limestone, and dolomite. These
rocks are part of the Michigan structural basin in which all beds dip toward
the structural center. The St. Marys area is located on the northern rim of
the basin, and thus bedrock formations dip toward the south. In the
St. Glair-Detroit area, on the southeast rim of the basin, the rocks dip to
the northwest. Unconsolidated Quaternary deposits are till, glaciolacustrine,
and glaciofluvial; alluvium occurs near streams. These deposits are the
result of continental glaciation and subsequent high water stages of the Great
Lakes. Although similar geological processes have operated in both study
areas, the stratigraphic relationship between bedrock and glacial deposits is
different between and within the two study areas.
Stratigraphy
St. Glair-Detroit River Study Area
The St. Glair-Detroit area has two general lithologic sequences that are
recognizable in the Paleozoic rocks (fig. 2). Rocks of Silurian to Late
Devonian age subcrop beneath glacial deposits from Pointe Mouillee to just
north of Belle Isle. These rocks are primarily an evaporite-carbonate
sequence that include, in ascending order, the Bass Islands Dolomite, Detroit
River Group, Dundee Formation and the Traverse Group (table 1). These
geologic units consist of limestone, dolomite, and minor beds of gypsum and
salt. In the Detroit River Group, sandstone is present.
Bedrock beneath the St. Clair area is of Devonian-Mississippian age.
These rocks are a clastic sequence that includes the Antrim Shale, Bedford
Shale, Berea Sandstone, Sunbury Shale, and Coldwater Shale; they consist
mostly of shale (table 1). The most extensive unit in the St. Clair area is
the Antrim Shale.
The relation between geologic units beneath channels is shown in a
section from Lake Erie to Lake Huron (fig. 3). The dip of beds to the north
is about 10 ft/mi (feet per mile). Pleistocene glacial deposits are overlain
by Uolocene lacustrine deposits in Lake St. Clair.
Bedrock topography slopes gently eastward toward the connecting channels.
The bedrock surface is dissected by erosional valleys that generally trend
east-west. There is no surface expression of these valleys because they are
filled with glacial deposits.
The surficial features of glacial deposits are shown in figure 4. These
features generally parallel present shorelines, indicating source direction of
deposits. Glacial deposits range in thickness from less than 100 ft in the
southern part of the area to nearly 250 ft at places in the northern part.
Deposits are usually till or glaciolacustrine and consist of fine-grained
sand, silt, and clay. Glaciofluvial deposits are absent at the surface in the
study area.
-------
EXPLANATION
o
0
N
O
LLJ
_l
<
Q.
MISSISSIPPIAN
DEVONIAN
SILURIAN
'//>
',"'
^
m
':X
:'•:'•:'•:'•
Coldwater Shale
Sunbury Shale, Berea Sandstone
and Bedford Shale, undivided
Antrim Shale
Traverse Group
Dundee Formation
Detroit River Group
Bass Islands Dolomite
83°
42'
ST. CLAIR
RIVER
CANADA
MACOMB CO. . .. -
/ / A/ /V I" /////?>(.//
LAKE ERIE
Modified from F.R. Twenter, 1975
10
20 MILES
0 10 20 KILOMETERS
Base from U.S. Geological Survey
1:500,000 map
Figure 2.—Bedrock geology of St. Glair-Detroit River study area.
-------
Table 1.—Description of geologic units in
St. Glair-Detroit River study area
Geologic unit
(age)
Lithology
Coldwater Shale
(Early Mississippian)
Sunbury Shale
(Early Mississippian)
Berea Sandstone
(Early Mississippian)
Bedford Shale
(Early Mississipian
and Late Devonian)
Antrim Shale
(Late Devonian)
Traverse Group
(Late to Middle
Devonian)
Dundee Formation
(Middle Devonian)
Primarily a micaceous, blue, blue-gray to green-
gray shale but locally is reddish and sandy in
the upper part. The weathered upper surface at
the base of the glacial drift can be mistaken
for glacial clays. Thin lenses of limestone,
dolomite, sandstone, and siltstone are
interspersed with the shale.
A dark brown, gray, or black, hard shale that
locally is dolomitic. Usually less than 50 ft
thick; absent at some locations.
White to gray or brown, fine to coarse grained,
micaceous sandstone, 50 to 120 ft thick. Gray
to blue-gray calcareous shales are locally
interbedded with the sandstone. Contact between
the Berea Sandstone and Bedford Shale is
difficult to delineate, and they are commonly
treated as one unit.
Light gray, calcareous or sandy shale with
sporadic lenses of sandstone, limestone and/or
dolomite. Where the formation is distinguish-
able, its thickness is as great as 300 ft.
Gray to black, thin bedded to fissile
carbonaceous shale, with pyritic nodules and
large bituminous concretions; the formation
ranges from about 125 to 170 ft in thickness.
Varicolored interbedded shales, limestones, and
dolomites. Bedding varies from thin to massive.
Total thickness of the group ranges from 200 to
350 ft. Shales commonly are calcareous,
limestones and dolomites can be cherty, and some
limestones are highly fossiliferous.
Primarily a gray, fossiliferous brown- to buff-
limestone and dolomite. It is 150 to 250 ft
thick.
-------
Table 1.—Description of geologic units in
St. Glair-Detroit River study area—Cont inued
Geologic unit Lithology
(age)
Detroit River Group The Detroit River Group underlies the drift in
(Middle Devonian) southern Wayne and northeastern Monroe County.
The formation consists of gray to buff, thin-
bedded dolomite, with some limestone, anhydrite,
salt and sandstone.
Bass Islands Dolomite Consists of light gray, brown- to buff-, dense,
(Late Silurian) finely crystalline dolomites, and some shaly
dolomites. Gypsum and anhydrite are common.
-------
South
North
Bass Islands
Dolomite
260-
180
Datum is sea level
0 10 20 MILES
Vertical scale greatly
exaggerated
180
0
10
20 KILOMETERS
Figure 3.—Generalized geologic section showing dip of bedrock and
relation of bedrock and glacial deposits from
Lake Erie to Lake Huron.
-------
EXPLANATION
oc
L'_ ™
o
Lakebeds. sand and clay
Moraines and till plains
Water-worked deposits: boulders
and reworked morainal material
ST. CLAIR
RIVER
CANADA
r «. i." ^Jfc»<"*
MONROE
LAKE ERIE
Modified from F.R. Twenter, 1975
10
I
20 MILES
0 10 20 KILOMETERS
Base from U.S. Geological Survey
1:500.000 map
Figure 4.—Surficial glacial features of St. Glair-Detroit River
study area.
11
-------
Geologic sections in the study area are given in Appendix B, and are
shown on figure 5. Sections A-A1 through J-J1, with the exception of
section E-E', suggest the lack of significant sand and gravel bodies at depth.
Section E-E1 shows a sand and gravel body at depth near the city of Fraser;
this sand and gravel could be of glaciofluvial origin. All other significant
coarse-grained materials occur at the interface of glacial deposits and
bedrock, and they are usually discontinuous.
St. Marys River Study Area
Bedrock geology of the St. Marys area consist of a clastic-carbonate
sequence that ranges from Precambrian to Ordovician age (fig. 6). These rocks
include the Jacobsville Sandstone and Muni sing Formation (table 2). The
Jacobsville Sandstone underlies glacial deposits in the St. Marys River from
Whitefish Bay to the southern end of Sugar Island. At Sault Ste. Marie, the
Jacobsville Sandstone underlies the river channel which creates the rapids in
the St. Marys River. South of Sugar Island, limestones and dolomites of the
Black River and Trenton Limestones (table 2) underlie the St. Marys River.
These rocks are of Ordovician age and are the youngest rocks in this study
area.
Bedrock topography of this area has higher relief than that in the
St. Glair-Detroit area. This high relief is shown in geologic sections K-K1
and L-L' (Appendix B), the locations of these sections are shown on figure 7.
The resistant limestone beds form a bedrock high in the southern part of the
study area, which also forms the southern boundary of a major buried valley
system that trends east-west. Another major buried valley trends north-south
in the vicinity of the Waiska River.
Glacial features are less pronounced in this area than in the St. Glair-
Detroit area. Thickness of glacial deposits ranges from less than 10 ft at
Sugar Island to more than 300 ft in bedrock valleys. Deposits are largely
fine-grained lacustrine deposits, coarser-grained tills (due to the underlying
bedrock) and glaciofluvial deposits. Geologic section K-K1 shows that
significant deposits of sand and gravel are present at depth.
Table 2.—Description of geologic units in
St. Marys River study area
Geologic unit (age) Lithology
Trenton and Black River Composed predominantly of buff to brown and gray
Limestones fossiliferous, finely crystalline to medium—
(Middle Ordovician) crystalline limestone. Shale layers are common
near the base of the Trenton Limestone.
Muni sing Formation A medium-grain, competent sandstone and poorly
(Late Cambrian) sorted, friable sandstone.
Jacobsville Sandstone Mottled red to reddish-brown feldspathic
(Precambrian) sandstone containing lenses of red or gray
conglomerate and some red shale.
12
-------
EXPLANATION
A'
-| LINE OF GEOLOGIC SECTION
83°
OW f, & W
._.! ,.
ST. CLAIR
RIVER
CANADA
DETROIT
RIVER CANADA
LAKE ERIE
10
20 MILES
0 10 20 KILOMETERS
Base from U.S. Geological Survey
1:500,000 map
Figure 5.—Locations of geologic sections in the St. Glair-Detroit
River study area.
13
-------
EXPLANATION
46°22'30"
o
N
<
O
UJN
i
o
cc
Q.
ORDOVICIAN
CAMBRIAN
g^
>S\Sc
^^/\/"
x?xS
B*3
&•:':.
•'•!--'V/;:.
•'f-:'.'*-'
l'.'r".-i
••;".'.';•'.
Younger Paleozoic
rocks
Trenton-Black River
Limestones
Munising Formation
Jacobsville Sandstone
SAINT MARYS
RIVER
NORTH
CHANNEL
CANADA
0 10 20 KILOMETERS
Base from U.S. Geological Survey
1:500,000 map
Modified from K.E. VanLier
and M. Deutsch, 1958
Figure 6.—Bedrock geology of St. Marys River study area.
-------
46°22'30".
EXPLANATION
L L'
I 1 LINE OF GEOLOGIC SECTION
SAINT MARYS
RIVER
NORTH
CHANNEL
CANADA
Base from U.S. Geological Survey
1:500,000 map
Figure 7.—Locations of geologic sections in the St. Marys
River study area.
-------
Stratigraphic Relations from Seismic Studies
2
A high-resolution marine seismic survey was conducted to improve the
definition of the geologic framework of the connecting channels in
southeastern Michigan. Bedrock geology, bedrock topography, and drift
thickness maps are available for only the Detroit River area (Mozola, 1969).
In other parts of the study area, the depth to bedrock and thickness and
characteristics of glacial deposits in the channel areas were unknown. The
seismic profiles helped define the stratigraphy of the channels and delineate
the hydrogeologic boundaries. Seismic profiles and locations of survey lines
for the St. Clair River, Lake St. Glair, and Detroit River are given in
Appendix C.
Interpretation of seismic records for the St. Clair River indicate that
glacial deposits range from 50 to 100 ft in thickness, depending on channel
depth. The bedrock surface is relatively flat, although minor undulations
occur. Figure 8 is a continuous seismic-reflection profile typical of the
St. Clair River. (Figure 8 corresponds to USGS line 20 C-C* in Appendix C.)
Water well and oil and gas well logs close to the St. Clair River were used to
confirm interpretations. Bedrock beneath the channel are the Bedford Shale
and the Antrim Shale of Mississippian and Devonian age. In the seismic
profile, the Antrim Shale, which is harder than the Bedford Shale, is
indicated by the strong seismic reflection it produced. The Bedford Shale is
defined on the basis of oil and gas logs which identify it as a semi-
consolidated shale. Well G2 near Port Huron is the only well installed by the
U.S. Geological Survey for the UGLCC study in the St. Clair study area that
reached bedrock. (Data for U.S. Geological Survey wells are given in
Appendix D.) Some surficial sand deposits, 5 to 10 ft thick, and at least
SO ft of silty-clay glacial deposits, were found when wells were installed.
During drilling of well G2, silty-clay glacial deposits extending to bedrock
were encountered. Till and lacustrine deposits could not be differentiated.
Contacts or sedimentary structures within deposits are not visible in the
seismic section because they are either poor reflectors or they are obscured
by acoustical interference.
In Lake St. Clair, glacial deposits, including Uolocene lacustrine
deposits, range from 75 to more than 150 ft in thickness. Interpretations of
the seismic profiles are difficult because of the lack of borehole data within
Lake St. Clair. Shallow borings made by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for
navigational light placement, a study by Brigham (1971), and logs of oil and
gas wells located on shore, provide generalized information.
Figure 9 shows a continuous seismic reflection profile in the southern
half of Lake St. Clair where lacustrine deposits overlie till. (Figure 9
corresponds to USGS line 14 in Appendix C.) Bedrock of this area in Lake
St. Clair is the Traverse Group which consists of limestones and shales. The
lack of sedimentary structures visible in the seismic section as well as the
glacial history of the area, suggest that till underlies the lacustrine unit.
2
Theories, techniques, and methods used in the survey are outlined by Hanei
and Melvin (1984) and by Hanei (1986).
16
-------
SOUND TRAVEL TIME, IN MILLISECONDS
OQ
c
fD
OO
o
3
a
c
o
c
en
en
fD
H*
01
3
i-i
fD
fD
O
o
3
fD
H-
3
3d
m
n
H-
It
po
K-
fD
3
fD
pi
I-i
3
fD
O-rO
Ol
-O
O
m
o
•-o
o
m
33
co m
m
<
-------
w
Water surface
CO
Q
o
o
LU
CO
LU
H
LU
CC
Q
O
to
water-seaiment interTace
^^^^•^•••^SB^&Oti^PBDBVHBlHIB
Lacustrine deposits
&8j*#«s
0
1
1
0
1000
1
1
10
20
30
2000
40 METERS
Vertical exaggeration x 20
Figure 9 .--Continuous seismic-reflection profile in southern Lake
St. Clair showing lacustrine deposits overlying till.
-------
The till also may contain some intercalated lacustrine deposits laid down in
the subaqueous depositional environment postulated by Leverart and Taylor
(1915). The lacustrine unit is post glacial. The unit thins toward the
south.
Glacial deposits beneath the Detroit River range from less than 10 to
70 ft in thickness. In the southern reach of the Detroit River, glacial
deposits are absent; bedrock forms the channel bottom.
Figure 10, a continuous seismic-reflection profile in northern reach of
the Detroit River, shows that Pleistocene lacustrine deposits overlie glacial
till. (Figure 10 corresponds to USGS line 22 B-B1 in Appendix C.)
Interpretation of the seismic profile is based on borings, on a study by
VanWyckhouse (1966), and on the sedimentary structures and nature of the
contacts shown in the seismic section. In this area, bedrock is the Dundee
Formation of Middle Devonian age (Mozola, 1969).
The presence of till is suggested by strong reflectors forming the basal
unit of the glacial deposits. VanWyckhouse (1966) refers to this unit as the
"hardpan" or "lower drift unit"; it is distinguished by its hardness. Records
of borings and wells in the Detroit area describe the unit, although it is
discontinuous and only 5 to 20 ft thick. The origin of the unit is uncertain.
The basal till may have formed from till that has been overridden by glacial
ice or by leaching of carbonate ions from the underlying bedrock.
The basal till unit is overlain by a second unit lacking internal
structure or bedforms. The nature of the contact with the overlying
lacustrine deposits suggests that it is a till. This unit also was recognized
by VanWyckhouse (1966), who described it as a gray, medium-hard till. He
reported a thickness of 35 to 40 ft.
A lacustrine unit also can be identified on the basis of seismic and
borehole information (fig. 10). The sedimentary structures are quite evident
in the seismic record; the contact with the underlying till is unconformable.
The hydraulic significance of these glacial units is uncertain because
the data are sparse. These units are fine grained; significant sand deposits
seem to be absent. However, the heterogenous nature of the deposits suggest
that coarse-grained materials may be present at some locations.
GROUND-WATER FLOW
Altitude of Water Table and Direction of Ground-Water Flow
The water table in the UGLCC study areas is shown on plates 1-5. Water-
table maps were constructed from well driller's records obtained from the
Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Geological Survey Division, and from
files of the U.S. Geological Survey. Well-record coverage for St. Glair,
Macomb, Monroe, and Chippewa Counties is adequate, except in areas close to
the channels. In Wayne County, coverage is very sparse within the study area,
and limited mostly to historical data. In areas where data are not available,
streams and other surface-water features were used to estimate the altitude of
the water table.
19
-------
Water surface
N>
o
a
O
o
UJ
CO
UJ
LU
<
DC
H
Q
O
V)
Water-sediment interface
^Lacustrine deposits^^
^^S5ass^ss=;?^^a&fc==teiS©«^
40 -
45 -
50
-40
• -45
-50
500
i
1000 FEET
Vertical exaggeration x 22
10
20 METERS
Figure 10.—Continuous seismic-reflection profile in the Detroit River near Belle Isle
showing Pleistocene lacustrine deposits overlying glacial till.
-------
In southeastern Michigan, ground-water flows eastward to the St. Clair
River, Lake St. Clair and Detroit River (plates 1-4). In Chippewa County, in
the Upper Peninsula, ground water flows radially toward St. Marys River
(plate 5). The direction of ground-water flow in the study areas is
influenced by surface-water drainage, dewatering projects, and glacial
landforms. These factors, in conjunction with water-level measurements, are
the basis for differentiating ground-water discharge areas shown on
plates 6-10. Ground water within these areas discharges directly to
connecting channels; at places outside of discharge areas, ground water
discharges to tributaries of the connecting channels.
Dewatering projects create cones of depression which may be extensive.
In Wayne County, dewatering of Sibley Quarry has created a cone with an area
of about 4 mi2 (plate 4). Other quarry dewatering projects have a pronounced
effect near the cities of Rockwood and Flatrock (plate 4). Glacial landforms,
such as end moraines, also control water-table configuration (plate 2). The
Mount Clemens moraine, which trends northeast-southwest, causes a number of
streams to flow into the main branch of the Clinton River near Mount Clemens.
The Emmet moraine near New Baltimore increases the altitude of the water
table. These end moraines form subtle topographic highs. They are composed
of fine-grained material characteristic of the water-laid till in the area.
Generalized subsurface ground-water flow paths to connecting channels are
shown in figure 11. In the St. Clair area, where the bedrock is predominantly
shales, most discharge to the streambed would be from the glacial deposits
(fig. lla). In the southern reaches of the Detroit River, and parts of the
St. Marys area where the silty-clay glacial materials are thin or absent, the
discharge to the rivers from the more permeable underlying bedrock increases
(fig. lib).
Ground-Water Discharge
Ground water discharges to the connecting channels from glacial deposits
and bedrock formations that form and underly channels. The unique geologic
settings and environmental problems associated with the different reaches of
the channels required the identification of each significant hydrogeologic
unit. For this study the units are shallow glacial deposits, glacial-bedrock
interface, and bedrock units. Separate estimates of flow from each unit have
been made.
Hydrogeologic Units
Shallow glacial unit.—The shallow glacial unit consists entirely of
Pleistocene age glacial deposits. In southeastern Michigan these are mostly
silty-clay till and glaciolacustrine deposits that contain discontinuous
stringers of sand and gravel. In the Upper Peninsula, significant deposits of
sand and gravel are at land surface and are also within the underlying till
and glaciolacustrine deposits. These sand and gravel deposits have
significantly higher ground-water runoff rates and, thus, discharge a greater
volume of ground water to the connecting channels.
Glacial-bedrock interface unit.—The glacial-bedrock interface unit
separates the shallow glacial unit and the bedrock unit. The discontinuous
interface unit is usually 5 to 20 ft of unconsolidated silty sand, gravel, and
21
-------
Shale
Figure 11.--Generalized ground-water flow paths to connecting channels,
22
-------
weathered or fractured bedrock surface. The unit is only of significance in
the St. Clair River and possibly the Lake St. Clair part of the study area
where the Antrim and Bedford Shales are the principal bedrock units. The
interface unit is assumed to be continuous for the purpose of estimating flow
to the St. Clair River and Lake St. Clair because of the unique role it may
play as an avenue of contaminant transport. For example, in the St. Clair
River area, past deep injection of wastes into shallow horizons in the Detroit
River Group near Sarnia, Ontario, caused overpressurization of the reservoir
rock. During the injection process, the pressure front forced oil, gas, and
water up through unplugged oil and gas wells. An environmental concern is
that high heads in the Detroit River Group resulting from the injection
process could cause waste fluids to migrate through fractures or more
permeable horizons in the rock. The glacial-bedrock interface unit could,
therefore, be one pathway through which waste fluids could reach the channels
or contaminate adjacent ground water. Mo evidence exists that this has
occurred in Michigan. Water from well G2, drilled to a depth of 112 ft near
Port Huron, did not contain chemical substances in concentrations higher than
common in natural waters; this suggests that no modification of water quality
by wastes has occurred at that depth. Analyses of water from greater depths
have not been made. In general, the glacial-bedrock interface unit discharges
less water to the connecting channels than does the shallow glacial unit.
Bedrock unit.—For this study, the bedrock unit is defined as the first
bedrock aquifer lying directly beneath the connecting channels. From Port
Huron to southern Lake St. Clair, the bedrock unit includes all carbonate
rocks of the Traverse Group at depths of 100 to 300 ft beneath the Antrim
Shale. From Lake St. Clair to near Fighting Island in the Detroit River, the
bedrock unit includes the carbonate rocks of the Traverse Group and Dundee
Formation that underlie at least 50 ft of glacial deposits. South of Fighting
Island, the bedrock unit is composed of limestone, dolomite, and sandstone of
the Detroit River Group, which lies beneath about 25 ft of fine-grained
glacial deposits. In an area near the mouth of the river, however, the
Detroit River Group forms the river channel. In the St. Marys area, the
bedrock unit is Jacobsville Sandstone. At some locations, it is exposed at
the surface; at other locations, it is beneath as much as 300 ft of glacial
deposits. At most places in both northern and southeastern Michigan, bedrock
units discharge less water to the connecting channels than do either the
shallow or glacial-bedrock interface units. In the lower reach of the Detroit
River, however, discharge from the bedrock unit is substantially greater than
at other locations.
Estimated Rates
Ground-water discharge from the shallow glacial unit to the connecting
channels was estimated by analyzing base flow at gaging stations on streams in
southeastern Michigan. Ground-water discharge from the glacial-bedrock
interface and bedrock units was estimated by using Darcy's Law of ground-water
flow and information on the hydraulic properties of glacial and bedrock
deposits beneath the channels.
Shallow glacial unit.—Base flow of perennial streams, which is largely
ground-water runoff, was used to estimate the ground-water discharge to the
connecting channels from the shallow glacial unit. Flow records collected at
the U.S. Geological Survey streamflow-gaging stations (table 3) were used to
23
-------
Table 3.—Characteristics of stream basins
[mi2, square mile; ft3/s, cubic feet per second; (ft3/s)/rni2,
cubic feet per second per square mile]
Discharge
at 60-
Period Drainage percent Discharge
of area duration rate
River basin Station number and name record (mi2) (ft3/s) [(ft3/s)/mi2]
Black River 04160050 Black River 1933-43 684 34.3 0.05
near Port Huron
04159500 Black River 1945-85 480 39.3 .08
near Fargo
04159900 Mill Creek 1964-75 169 15.2 .09
near Avoca
Belle River 04160600 Belle River 1963-85 151 20.1 .13
at Memphis
Clinton River 04165500 Clinton River 1935-85 734 241 .33
at Mount Clemens
04164500 North Branch 1948-85 199 26.2 .13
Clinton River near
Mount Clemens
04164000 Clinton River 1948-85 444 218 .49
near Fraser
River Rouge 04168500 Lower River 1931-33 91.9 6.0 .07
Rouge at South Brady
Road near Dearborn
04168000 Lower River 1948-85 83.2 9.3 .11
Rouge at Inkster
04167000 Middle River 1931-85 99.9 27.4 .27
Rouge near Garden City
04166100 River Rouge at 1959-85 87.9 24.6 .28
Southfield
04166500 River Rouge at 1931-85 187 40.6 .22
Detroit
24
-------
Table 3.—Characteristics of stream basins—Continued
Discharge
at 60-
Period Drainage percent Discharge
of area duration rate
River basin Station number and name record (mi2) (ft3/s) [ (ft3/s)/mi2]
River Raisin 04176500 River Raisin 1938-85 1,042 247 0.24
near Monroe
Pine River 04127918 Pine River 1973-85 184 112 .61
near Rudyard
25
-------
determine base flow. In previous studies by the U.S. Geological Survey, the
55th to 60th percentile of annual flow duration (amount of time that flow in
an average year is equaled or exceeded) has been considered a representative
value for average annual ground-water runoff (U.S. Geological Survey, 1968;
Cummings and others, 1984). For this study, the 60th percentile of annual
flow duration was used to estimate base flow. With the exception of the Pine
River near Rudyard, which is in the St. Marys area, gaging stations locations
are shown on figure 12.
Ground-water discharge per square mile was then calculated for the gaged
basins, and a rate of discharge was determined. Stream basins that have
higher discharge rates are in areas where surficial sand deposits overlie
fine-grained till and lacustrine deposits intercalated with deposits of sand
and gravel. Discharge rates are lower in stream basins underlain
predominantly by fine-grained till and lacustrine deposits.
Rates of ground-water discharge determined for gaged basins were used to
estimate rates in the ground-water discharge areas shown on plates 6-10.
Because the geological settings of discharge areas and gaged stream basins are
similar, the following rates were considered appropriate: 0.10 (ft3/s)/mi2
(cubic feet per second per square mile) for fine-grained lacustrine deposits;
0.13 (ft3/s)/mi2 for areas of fine-grained till and lacustrine deposits;
0.18 (ft3/s)/mia for areas of some surficial sand overlying fine-grained till
and lacustrine deposits; 0.25 (ft3/s)/mi2 where the area is mostly covered
with surficial sands overlying fine-grained till and lacustrine deposits;
0.35 (ft3/s)/mi2 where surficial sands overlie till and lacustrine deposits
that contain intercalated sand and gravel deposits; and 0.50 (fc3/s)/mi2 where
thick surficial sand deposits are found in parts of the basin.
Rates of ground-water discharge per unit area are higher near the
St. Marys River than in southeastern Michigan because of the presence of
coarse-grained materials. The estimated total ground-water discharge to the
connecting channel in the St. Marys area and the St. Glair-Detroit area from
the shallow glacial unit is given in table 4.
26
-------
EXPLANATION
041595OOA SURFACE-WATER GAGING
STATION—Location and
number
83°
ST. CLAIR
RIVER
CANADA
42°
ST CLAIR CO.
04159500
V- DETROIT
RIVER CANADA
LAKE ERIE
10
20 MILES
I
10 20 KILOMETERS
Base from U.S. Geological Survey
1:500,000 map
Figure 12.—Location of surface-water gaging stations
in southeastern Michigan.
27
-------
Table 4.—Ground-water contribution to connecting channels
[mi2, square mile; mi, mile; (ft3/s)/mi2, cubic feet per
second per square mile; £t3/s, cubic feet per second]
Area
Location number
St. Clair 1
River
2
3
4a
Lake St. 4b
Clair
5
6
7a
Detroit 7b
River
8
2
Area Shorelength
(mi2) (mi)
S 1.9 1.98
G .43
B .43
S 32.3 11.69
G 3.05
B 3.05
S 11.4 8.41
G 1.96
B 1.96
S 18.8 6.67
G 1.69
B 1.69
S 27.5 13.26
G 32.41
B 32.41
S 80.4 15.78
G 32.58
B 32.58
S 4.7 7.37
G 31.60
B 31.60
S 103.9 16.36
G 77.61
B 77.61
S 79.4 10.84
B 4.34
S .50 .92
B .29
Discharge rate
for shallow
glacial unit
[(ft3/s)/mi2]
0.25
.18
.13
.13
.10
.13
.13
.13
.13
.25
Discharge
from hydro-
geologic units
(ft3/s)
0.48
.047
.001
5.81
.33
.007
1.48
.21
.005
2.44
.18
.004
2.75
3.54
.080
10.45
3.56
.080
.61
3.46
.070
13.51
8.49
.18
11.62
1.12
.13
.12
Total
discharge
from area
(ft3/*)
0.52
6.15
1.70
2.62
6.37
13.79
4.14
22.18
12.74
.25
28
-------
Table 4.—Ground-water contribution to connecting channels—Continued
Location
Detroit
River
(continued)
St. Marys
River
1
Area
number
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
2 See plates 6-10
A
Discharge rate
for shallow
Discharge
from hydro-
Total
discharge
Area Shorelength glacial unit geologic units from area
(mi2)
S 4.60
B 1.13
S 6.0
B 5.72
S 26.5
B ,5.37
B J9.67
S 21.4
B 10.37
S 65.8
B 23.81
S 7.8
B 1.35
S 52.1
B 29.17
S 22.0
B 4.63
(mi) [(ft3/s)/mi2]
3.53 0.13
5.37 .13
11.54 .13
9.95 .50
32.18 .35
7.46 .35
37.45 .25
20.12 .25
(ft3/s)
0.60
.46
.78
2.35
3.45
2.20
31.20
10.70
3.35
23.03
7.68
2.73
.44
13.03
9.41
5.50
1.50
(ftVs)
1.05
3.13
36.85
14.05
30.71
3.17
22.44
5.75
for location of area.
•Il»..^*wA £1 n.--. ^ ** ^W A MltMMM^In f •••sxitt ^ V> *•» ol> <* 1 1 s\r.i t>l a «* i o 1 »i«"» •* t"
in till and lacustrine deposits; G is flow to the channels from the
interface of glacial deposits and bedrock; and B is flow to channels from
the bedrock unit.
Area 11 is divided on basis of channel geology changing from glacial
deposits to limestone.
29
-------
Glacial-bedrock interface and bedrock units.—Discharge of ground water
from the glacial-bedrock interface and bedrock units to the connecting
channels was calculated by estimating vertical hydraulic conductivity,
hydraulic gradient, and the thickness of fine-grained glacial deposits and
bedrock beneath the channels. Generalized sections showing the hydraulic
conductivity and relative thickness of deposits are shown in figure 13.
Discharge rates from the glacial-bedrock, interface and bedrock units in
table 4 were derived by using the highest hydraulic conductivities thought
possible for geologic materials in the study area. The following equations
(Freeze and Cherry, 1979) were used to make estimates of discharge rates:
K = (1)
and
Q = K - A, (2)
xz z dz '
where K — equivalent vertical hydraulic conductivity of system
of n layers (L/T),
d = total thickness of geologic units (L),
d. = thickness of layer i (L),
K. = vertical hydraulic conductivity of layer i (L/T),
n = number of layers (dimensionless),
^h - vertical hydraulic gradient (dimensionless),
dz
A = area in which vertical flow occurs (L2), and
Q = vertical flow rate (L3/T).
Z
Calculations using these equations indicate that deposits with the lowest
vertical hydraulic conductivity control the vertical movement of ground water
to the connecting channels. Hydrogeologic units with the lowest vertical
hydraulic conductivity are fine-grained glacial deposits, glacial till and
glaciolacustrine deposits, and shale. Sand and gravel, limestone, and
sandstone have the highest vertical hydraulic conductivity.
Estimates of vertical hydraulic conductivity for fine-grained glacial
deposits were based on work by Desaulniers and others (1981) and on Mason and
others (1986). Desaulniers and others (1981) determined the vertical
hydraulic conductivity of glacial till and glaciolacustrine deposits of
southwestern Ontario to range from 0.00003 ft/d to 0.0003 ft/d (foot per day).
Seepage-meter studies by Mason and others (1986) suggested that the streambed
hydraulic conductivity of the St. Clair River was at least two orders of
magnitude higher than values determined by Desaulniers and others (1981).
Based on these data, a vertical hydraulic conductivity of 0.03 ft/d for till
is used in calculations for this study.
30
-------
Belle
Isle
Zug
Island
LAKE
ERIE
Midpoint
Grosse He \
= 0.03 ft/d^g-r^:]:
D fT-j^KHHrS
ft ^
: Kv2=1 ft/d '! •' J '' L' i . rf
DETROIT RIVER
LAKE,HURON DETROIT RIVER
t- D c n
-T.oi = OU
KV4=1 ft/d
ST. CLAIR RIVER-LAKE ST. CLAIR
LAKE SUPERIOR
SOUTH END
NEEBISH ISLAND
KV1=0.1 ft/d • .:;-. .
EXPLANATION
DESCRIPTION OF GEOLOGIC UNIT
^3 Glacial till/glaciolacustrine
silts and clay, or both
['„.'•• A Unconsolodated sand
and gravel
\^=s\ Limestone/dolomite
h I Sandstone
KV1 VERTICAL HYDRAULIC
CONDUCTIVITY
b, THICKNESS OF LAYER
SAINT MARYS RIVER
Figure 13.—Generalized geologic sections underlying
connecting channels.
31
-------
Vertical hydraulic conductivities of the shale were estimated by
reviewing published values for other shale units. Bredeheoft and others
(1983) reported vertical hydraulic conductivities for South Dakota shales
ranging from 3xlO~6 ft/d to 3xlO~8 ft/d. Because some evidence exists that
shales in the connecting channels study area have been fractured, a vertical
hydraulic conductivity of 0.0003 ft/d is used in ground-water discharge
calculations.
In calculating ground-water discharge, a vertical hydraulic gradient of
0.01 has been assumed. This assumption is based on historical head data of
the Detroit area (Sherzer, 1913) and on a report by Jackson (1987) on the St.
Clair River Valley.
One well (G2), installed in the bedrock-glacial deposit interface near
Port Huron, has an upward gradient. This is consistent with wells installed
by Canadian investigators on the eastern side of the St. Clair River at
similar distances from the river (Jackson, 1987).
Estimates of the thickness of geologic units beneath channels in the St.
Glair-Detroit area were based on the seismic-reflection survey conducted by
the U.S. Geological Survey. (See section "Stratigraphic Relations from
Seismic Studies.")
Discharge to Connecting Channels
Total ground-water discharge to the connecting channels in the St. Clair-
Detroit area from Port Huron to Pointe Mouillee is about 112 ft3/s (table 4).
Discharge rates increase southward because the fine-grained glacial deposits
become thin, and because hydraulic conductivity of the bedrock increases. The
highest discharge rate is in Area 11 south of Detroit (plate 9). In this
area, glacial deposits are thin or absent; bedrock is limestone, dolomite, and
sandstone. Discharge rates are lowest near the St. Clair River where glacial
deposits are thick, fine grained, and underlain by shales.
Total ground-water discharge in the St. Marys area is about 76 ft3/s
(table 4). Although ground-water discharge to the connecting channel is about
the same as in southeastern Michigan, discharge per square mile is much higher
in the St. Marys area because of the extensive deposits of sand and gravel in
the shallow glacial unit. Discharge from bedrock also is greater in the
St. Marys area principally because permeable sandstones and limestones
comprise a significant part of the bedrock.
Ground-Water Flow to Connecting Channels from Tributaries
All ground water within discharge areas (plates 6-10) enters the
connecting channels directly; ground water outside these areas discharges to
tributaries of the channels and, thus, becomes part of the surface-water
discharge to the channels. Tracing the movement of ground-water contaminants
to streams and subsequently to the connecting channels, however, was beyond
the scope of this study.
An estimate of the amount of ground-water discharge to the connecting
channels from tributaries can be made using long-term streamflow records and
estimates of ungaged stream flow. Table 5 shows streamflow characteristics
and resultant estimates of ground-water flow.
32
-------
Table 5.—Estimates of ground-water flow to connecting channels
from tributaries
[ft3/s, cubic feet per second; mi2, square mile]
Black Pine Belle Clinton Rouge Waiska Charlotte
River River River River River River River
Average
discharge
(ft3/s)
Drainage
area
(mi2)
Ground-
water
discharge
(ft3/s)
Drainage
area (UGLCC
portion only)
(mia)
420
711
57
110 140
194 230
560 300
52
Ground-water
discharge
(UGLCC portion
only) (ftVs) 9
25
100
10
30
102
10
760
240
252
83
240
185
252
117
142
87
142
26
87
72
83
34
55
34
In the St. Clair-Detroit study area, ground-water discharge to connecting
channels from tributaries is about 10 percent of total flow of the
tributaries. In the St. Marys study area, ground water contributes about
47 percent of total flow of tributaries to connecting channels.
Ground water may have a significant effect on tributaries at some
locations. Usually the effect will be greatest in areas where geological
conditions enhance the movement of ground water, such as in the Clinton, River
Rouge, and Pine River basins (table 3).
Along Clinton River near Utica, in the southwestern quarter of T.3 N.,
R.12 E. (plate 7), several sites are located on a Pleistocene deltaic sand
deposit. Two of these sites, G & H Landfill (Site MA12) (Frank Belobraidich,
Michigan Department of Natural Resources, written comm., 1985, 1986, and 1987;
Steve Cunningham, Michigan Department of Natural Resources, written comm.,
1985, 1986, and 1987; Tom Work, Michigan Department of Natural Resources,
written comm., 1986; Michigan Sites of Environmental Contamination-Priority
List, Act 307, Michigan Department of Natural Resources 1986 and 1987; Gorman
and Akeley, 1978; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1986a; and Ken
33
-------
Westlake, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, written comm., 1987) and
Liquid Disposal Incorporated (Site MA33) (Frank Belobraidich, Michigan
Department of Natural Resources, written comm., 1985, 1986, and 1987; Steve
Cunningham, Michigan Department of Natural Resources, written comm., 1985,
1986, and 1987; Tom Work, Michigan Department of Natural Resources, written
comm., 1986; Michigan Sites of Environmental Contamination-Priority List, Act
307, Michigan Department of Natural Resources 1986 and 1987; U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1986a; and Ken Westlake, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, written comm., 1987), have contaminated local ground water.
Both of these sites are on the National Priorities List, and studies of these
sites by the USEPA show that the ground water flows through the sand and
gravel and discharges to the nearby Clinton River.
Red Run Drain Landfill (Site MA13) (Frank Belobraidich, Michigan
Department of Natural Resources, written comm., 1985, 1986, and 1987; Steve
Cunningham, Michigan Department of Natural Resources, written comm., 1985,
1986, and 1987; Tom Work, Michigan Department of Natural Resources, written
comm., 1986; Michigan Sites of Environmental Contamination-Priority List, Act
307, Michigan Department of Natural Resources 1986 and 1987; and Gorman and
Akeley, 1978) is adjacent to Red Run Drain, a tributary to the Clinton River.
This site, located in the southwestern corner of T.2 N.,R.12 E. (plate 7), is
actually seven separate landfills, each of which is along the drain.
Surficial sand deposits of the area are thin, but the proximity of these sites
to Red Run Drain makes it likely that a substantial amount of ground water
discharges to the stream.
The River Rouge drains some of the most heavily populated and
industrialized areas of southeastern Michigan. Parts of the River Rouge
drainage area contain surficial sand deposits associated with Pleistocene
glacial lakes. Surficial sand deposits increase ground-water runoff in a
stream basin (table 3). Sites that could have an affect on the River Rouge
near the Detroit River are Edward C. Levy Company Plant No. 6 (Site WA50)
(Richard Traub, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, written comm., 1986;
Michigan Sites of Environmental Contamination-Priority List, Act 307, Michigan
Department of Natural Resources 1986 and 1987), Edwards Oil Service (Site
WA37) (Richard Traub, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, written comm.,
1986, David Slayton, Michigan Department of Natural Resources, written comm.,
1986 and 1987), and Rouge Steel Company (Site WA58) (Richard Traub, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, written comm., 1986). These sites are
industrial sites regulated by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA). This area is one of lakebed sand and alluvium; industrial development
has altered surface deposits at some locations, however.
Drainage ditches, which are common in southeastern Michigan, also can
intercept shallow ground water. For example, Monguogon Creek, near the city
of Riverview, drains to the Trenton channel from an area that contains waste
sites that rank among those most potentially hazardous. These include
Industrial Landfill (Site WA22) (Frank Belobraidich, Michigan Department of
Natural Resources, written comm., 1985, 1986, and 1987; Michigan Sites of
Environmental Contamination-Priority List, Act 307, Michigan Department of
Natural Resources 1986 and 1987; and Steve Cunningham, Michigan Department of
Natural Resources, written comm., 1985, 1986, and 1987), Federal Marine
Terminal Properties (Site WA15) (Frank Belobraidich, Michigan Department of
Natural Resources, written comm., 1985, 1986, and 1987; Michigan Sites of
34
-------
Environmental Contamination-Priority List, Act 307, Michigan Department of
Natural Resources 1986 and 1987; and Steve Cunningham, Michigan Department of
Natural Resources, written comm., 1985, 1986, and 1987), and Edward C. Levy
Company-Trenton Plant (Site WA51) (Michigan Sites of Environmental
Contamination-Priority List, Act 307, Michigan Department of Natural Resources
1986 and 1987). Sites WA22 and WAI5 are recognized by the Michigan Department
of Natural Resources as ground-water-contamination sites; site WAS1 is an
industrial site regulated under RCRA. Although drainage ditches generally are
shallow, they can provide a pathway for discharge of contaminated ground water
to the connecting channels.
Identification of Areas Suitable for Simulation of Ground-Water Flow
The estimates of the quantity of ground water flowing to the connecting
channels could be improved if digital computer models were developed for
selected areas. Factors that determine the feasibility or desirability of
simulating ground-water flow in UGLCC study areas include (a) geologic and
hydrologic characteristics, (b) occurrence of serious or potentially serious
ground-water contamination problems, and (c) a determination that the benefits
gained from an increased understanding of the flow system justify the cost of
model development.
Detroit River Study Area
Along the southern reach of the Detroit River, between the city of Ecorse
and Huron River (plate 9), 15 waste sites either are degrading or are
suspected of degrading the quality of ground water that moves to the Detroit
River. Several hydrogeologic studies of shallow ground-water flow at specific
sites in this area have been conducted. Unfortunately, some investigations
did not extend beyond the boundaries of a site. A ground-water model would be
useful in determining the local direction of flow at sites, and in making
channel loading estimates, and could be used if remedial actions were
undertaken.
Model development also would be valuable in understanding the effect of
quarrying operations on shallow ground-water movement. Near Trenton, for
example, waste sites lie between the Sibley quarry and the Detroit River;
water from these sites may discharge to the quarry.
Development of a ground-water flow model will require installation of
additional wells to determine the hydrologic relation between the glacial
deposits and underlying bedrock. At present, little is known about the
hydrologic characteristics of the limestone and dolomite bedrock units. In
order to make loading estimates, simulation efforts would need to be
accompanied by the collection of a substantial amount of water-quality data.
St. Clair River Study Area
The first subsurface disposal wells in Ontario were installed at Sarnia,
which is located on the eastern shore of the St. Clair River across from Port
Huron, Michigan. By the late 1960's, a total of 15 wells were injecting
industrial waste into the Detroit River Group; three additional wells injected
waste into a brine cavity in the Saline Formation.
35
-------
In 1966-67, pressure caused by deep-well injection forced pore fluids in
unplugged wells in the Detroit River Group to the land surface near Port Huron
and north of Marine City, Michigan. The potential for contaminating the St.
Clair River and shallow water-supply aquifers was apparent.
Geology and hydrology of this area are only generally understood. During
this project one well (G2) was installed in the glacial-bedrock interface
unit. The water level of this well indicates an upward gradient from the
interface to the shallow flow system and possibly to the river. A ground-
water flow model of the area from Port Huron south to Marine City would be
valuable in assessing the effects of waste injection on the quality of water
in shallow aquifers. A thorough definition of potential problems would
require installation of several deep wells and the collection of additional
water-quality data.
GROUND-WATER QUALITY
Although substantial amounts of water-quality data are available in the
UGLCC study areas, little information has been obtained in Michigan on the
concentrations of many of the metals and organic compounds identified by UGLCC
study planners as necessary for adequate assessment of water-quality
conditions. In addition, only sparse data are available downgradient from
waste sites, principally because of the closeness of many sites to the
connecting channels.
In an attempt to increase the data base, 25 observation wells were
installed during the project (Appendix D). An effort was made to install one
to three wells in most of the 16 ground-water discharge areas (plates 6-10).
The actual locations of the wells depended on the number of waste sites
upgradient, on the size of the ground-water discharge area, and on permission
for drilling from land owners. Permission to install wells was denied in most
instances in the Detroit area where legal actions have been taken with respect
to some waste sites and where ground-water contamination is thought to be most
prevalent. Because property on which many waste sites are located extends to
the connecting channel, no alternative locations downgradient were available.
At such waste sites, even though contaminants in ground water or on soils have
been identifed, the low permeability of the deposits prevents establishing
contaminant movement based on the direction of ground-water flow alone.
Samples for analyses were collected from the 25 wells installed by the
U.S. Geological Survey and from six private wells. Analyses were made for
volatile, base-neutral, acid-extractable, and chlorinated neutral-extractable
hydrocarbons, trace metals, and other chemical substances. These analyses are
given in Appendix D. Analyses of samples collected for quality
assurance/quality control (QA/QC) also are given in these tables. (The QA/QC
plan for this study is given in Appendix A.)
36
-------
As part of QA/QC laboratory procedures, blanks, surrogate spike
recoveries, and duplicate samples were analyzed. Laboratory blank data for
base/neutral/acid extractables (BNA) indicate that no significant contaminants
occurred in the blanks. Phthalate esters detected by the target compound
analysis, and other compounds in the sample extracts tentatively identified by
mass spectral library search, indicate that those substances may be present at
the corresponding sampling sites. It is possible, however, that they were
introduced during sampling or shipment. A review of collection and shipping
techniques did not suggest a source. No significant laboratory blank
contaminants were observed during the analysis of chlorinated neutral
extractables (CNE).
In the analysis of duplicate samples, there were not enough positive
identifications to make a clear assessment of replicate precision.
Qualitative identification of phthalate esters in BNA extracts was good in
replicate analyses. However, the presence of such plasticizers in always
suspicious.
In both BNA and CNE analyses, mean surrogate spike recoveries were not
significantly different from those for distilled water or other sample
surrogate spikes.
Matrix effects (high nondescript background) were considered to be a
problem in all of the analyses, but most significantly in the CNE analyses due
to the sensitivity of the electron-capture detector and dependence solely on
retention-time data for identification at the submicrogram level. Many of the
samples required dilution (reflected in the higher reporting thresholds)
and/or additional fractionation by column chromatography. Thus, there is a
possibility that the identifications made by this technique were false
positives because analysis was attempted at low concentrations in a complex
matrix.
Concentrations of trace metals, in a number of instances, are unusually
high. Analyses of water were made for the total amount present in a sample in
accordance with methods agreed on by UGLCC study participants. The deposits
in many areas, even after lengthy periods of well pumping, yielded water
containing finely divided particulate matter. It is believed that this
particulate matter may have contributed significantly to the measured
concentrations, and if so, concentrations of trace metals in ground water
discharged to the connecting channels could be much lower than analyses
indicate.
Appendix E gives chemical analyses of water and soils made by various
State, Federal, and private laboratories at waste sites. Some of the analyses
are of soil or water near a point of contamination, and thus reflect on-site
Laboratory blank contaminant data, nontarget library search results
(GC/MS), surrogate recovery data, chromatograms, and target compound data are
on file with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Chicago, Illinois.
Copies may also be obtained from the U.S. Geological Survey, Water Resources
Divison, Lansing, Michigan.
37
-------
conditions rather than representing the effect of downgradient transport.
Appendix D gives the analyses of ground water made by the U.S. Geological
Survey at 31 locations. About a third of the wells sampled by the U.S.
Geological Survey were downgradient from a waste or spill site; other
locations were chosen to provide background information.
For this study, analyses by county Health Departments also were assembled
and reviewed. However, only a few of the most common constituents found in
ground water are determined by Health Departments, and the number of domestic
wells located near the connecting channels are comparatively few. As a result
the usefulness of these analyses in this study was minimal.
Study Areas
St. Marys River Study Area
Chemical analyses of water from seven wells in three ground-water
discharge areas in the St. Marys study area were made by the U.S. Geological
Survey. (These wells are numbered G22 to G25, and P4 to P6, in Appendix D;
the locations are shown on plate 10.) It was possible to locate two wells
near waste sites. Well G23 was installed at Cannelton Industries tannery
disposal (Site CHS) (Mark Petrie, Michigan Department of Natural Resources,
written comm., 1986; Michigan Sites of Environmental Contamination-Priority
List, Act 307, Michigan Department of Natural Resources, 1986 and 1987), and
well G24 was installed downgradient from Sault Ste. Marie disposal (Site CH4)
(Mark Petrie, Michigan Department of Natural Resources, written comm., 1986;
Michigan Sites of Environmental Contamination-Priority List, Act 307,ist, Act
307, Michigan Department of Natural Resources, 1986 and 1987).
Analyses of water from each of the seven wells indicated that
concentrations of the volatile hydrocarbons, if present, did not exceed the
detection limit of 3.0 ug/L (micrograms per liter). Base neutral compounds
and chlorinated neutral extractable compounds were also less than the
detection limit, with exception of water from wells G23 and G24, which
contained phthalates. Water of well G23 had the highest concentration—
95 ug/L bis (2-ethyl hexyl) phthalate. Analyses made by laboratories other
than that of the U.S. Geological Survey (Appendix E) did not provide data on
organic compounds in ground water.
Trace-metal analyses of water from the seven wells sampled by the U.S.
Geological Survey indicated concentrations exceeding USEPA (1986b,c) drinking
water standards4 in only one sample. Water from well G23 contained 320 ug/L
of chromium and 8.4 mg/L of zinc. Analyses of trace metals by other
laboratories showed considerably higher concentrations in ground water at
Sites CH4 and CHS. Maximum concentrations of 300 ug/L arsenic, 410,000 ug/L
USEPA maximum contaminant levels for trace metals in drinking water are:
arsenic, SO ug/L; barium, 1,000 ug/L; cadmium, 10 ug/L; chromium, SO ug/L;
lead, 50 ug/L; mercury, 2 ug/L; selenium, 10 ug/L; and silver, 50 ug/L.
Secondary maximum contaminant levels are: copper, 1 mg/L; iron, 300 ug/L;
manganese, 50 ug/L; and zinc, 5 mg/L.
38
-------
aluminum, 440,000 ug/L chromium, 2,400 ug/L lead, 570 ug/L nickel are
reported.
St. Clair River Study Area
Chemical analyses of water from eight wells in four discharge areas in
the St. Clair River study area were made by the U.S. Geological Survey.
(These wells are numbered Gl to G8 in Appendix D; the locations are shown on
plates 6 and 7.) It was possible to locate two wells downgradient from waste
sites. Well G3 was installed downgradient from A and B Waste Disposal
(Site SC16) (Frank Belobraidich, Michigan Department of Natural Resources,
written comm., 1985, 1986, and 1987; Michigan Sites of Environmental
Contamination-Priority List, Act 307, Michigan Department of Natural Resources
1986 and 1987; and Steve Cunningham, Michigan Department of Natural Resources,
written comm., 1985, 1986, and 1987). Well G4 was installed downgradient from
Wills Street dump (Site SC15) (Frank Belobraidich, Michigan Department of
Natural Resources, written comm., 1985, 1986, and 1987; Michigan Sites of
Environmental Contamination-Priority List, Act 307, Michigan Department of
Natural Resources 1986 and 1987; and Steve Cunningham, Michigan Department of
Natural Resources, written comm., 1985, 1986, and 1987).
Analyses of water from each of the eight wells indicated that
concentrations of volatile hydrocarbons were less than the detection limit.
Base neutral compounds and chlorinated neutral extractable compounds were
detected in water from five of the wells. Well G3, downgradient from
Site SC16, contained 1,500 ug/L of bis (2-ethyl hexyl) phthalate—the highest
concentration of an organic compound detected in the study (Appendix D).
Analyses of soil and water by laboratories other than that of the U.S.
Geological Survey (Appendix E) detected chlorinated hydrocarbons, phenols, and
aroclor 1260 on soils at Site SC15. Organic compounds in ground water at
Site SC16 are reported, but concentrations are unknown.
Analyses of water for trace metals by the U.S. Geological Survey showed
unusually high concentrations of trace metals in ground water. Maximum
concentrations were 6,300 ug/L lead, 390,000 ug/L zinc, 2,100 ug/L barium,
500,000 ug/L iron. It is believed that these high concentrations are due, in
part, to the finely divided particulate matter in the samples. Analyses made
by other laboratories (Appendix E) provide no data on trace metals.
Lake St. Clair Study Area
Chemical analyses of water from eight wells in four ground-water
discharge areas in the Lake St. Clair study area were made by the U.S.
Geological Survey. (These wells are numbered G9 through G16 in Appendix D;
the locations are shown on plates 7 and 8.) Two wells (G9 and G13) were
installed downgradient from waste sites. Well G9 was installed downgradient
from the Clay Township sanitary landfill (Site SC7) (Frank Belobraidich,
Michigan Department of Natural Resources, written comm., 1985, 1986, and 1987;
Tom Work, Michigan Department of Natural Resources, written comm., 1986; and
Gorman and Akeley, 1978); well G13 is downgradient from the west ramp and
northwest sanitary landfill at Selfridge Air National Guard Base (Site MA41a)
(Steve Cunningham, Michigan Department of Natural Resources, written comm.,
1985, 1986, and 1987; Michigan Sites of Environmental Contamination-Priority
List, Act 307, Michigan Department of Natural Resources 1986 and 1987).
39
-------
Previous work by other investigators had not detected contaminants at Site
SC7; petroleum hydrocarbons, chlorinated hydrocarbons, and trace metals have
been found in ground water at Site MAAla (Appendix E).
Analyses of water from each of the eight wells indicated that
concentrations of volatile hydrocarbons, if present, are consistently less
than the detection limit. Benzene, however, was detected in well G14
(3.1 ug/L). Base neutral compounds and chlorinated neutral extractables
generally were absent. Phthlates were in water from all but well G10. The
highest concentration found was that of bis (2 -ethyl hexyl) phthalate,
560 ug/L, in water from well Gil. Traces of DDT and lindane were detected in
water from wells G9, Gil, and G15. Analyses of water by laboratories other
than that of the U.S. Geological Survey for organic compounds indicate that
petroleum hydrocarbons, chlorinated hydrocarbons, and phenols are in ground
water at Site MAAla. Benzene, toluene, methylene chloride, trichloroethylene,
dichloroethylene, and ethyl benzene are reported in concentrations generally
less than 100 ug/L. A vinyl chloride concentration of 45 ug/L has been
reported. Di-n-octylphthalate was found at a concentration of 650
Analyses of water for trace metals by the U.S. Geological Survey
indicated high concentrations at some locations. Maximum concentrations
included 4,000 ug/L barium, 580,000 ug/L iron, 600 ug/L lead, and 74,000 ug/L
zinc. All of these values are well in excess of USEPA drinking-water
regulations. A pU greater than 11 was measured at one location. It is
believed that the high trace metal concentrations were caused, in part, by
finely divided particulate matter in the samples. Trace metals are frequently
adsorbed on particulate matter. Other laboratories also report high
concentrations of trace metals in water. At one site, a copper concentration
of 1,900 ug/L was found in ground water.
Detroit River Study Area
Chemical analyses of water from eight wells in the Detroit River study
area were made by the U.S. Geological Survey. (These wells are numbered G17
to G21, and PI to P3, in Appendix D; the locations are shown on plates 8
and 9.) Wells G17 and G20 were located downgradient from waste sites. In
addition, two private wells, located on waste-site property, were sampled.
Well G17 is downgradient from Petro-Chem Processing, Inc. (Site WA70) (Richard
Traub, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, written comm. , 1986; David
Slayton, Michigan Department of Natural Resources, written comm., 1986 and
1987), where low levels of organic compounds have been detected in ground
water (Appendix E) . Analyses of water from well G17 show significant
concentrations of base neutral compounds (Appendix D). Concentrations of
inorganic substances are also significantly higher than those found at most
other locations. Well G20 is downgradient from McLouth Steel Corporation
(Site WA5) (Frank Belobraidich, Michigan Department of Natural Resources,
written comm., 1985, 1986, and 1987; Tom Work, Michigan Department of Natural
Resources, written comm., 1986) where the concentrations of inorganic
compounds ground water are higher than common in natural waters. Ground water
at Michigan Consolidated Gas Company's Riverside Park (Site WA23) (Frank
Belobraidich, Michigan Department of Natural Resources, written comm., 1985,
1986, and 1987; Michigan Sites of Environmental Contamination-Priority List,
Act 307, Michigan Department of Natural Resources 1986 and 1987; and Steve
Cunningham, Michigan Department of Natural Resources, written comm., 1985,
40
-------
1986, and 1987), where well PI is located, is contaminated by organic
compounds and metals (Appendixes D and E). Ground water at Pennwalt
Corporation (Site WA57) (Richard Traub, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
written comm., 1986; Michigan Sites of Environmental Contamination-Priority
List, Act 307, Michigan Department of Natural Resources 1986 and 1987; and
Steve Cunningham, Michigan Department of Natural Resources, written comm.,
1985, 1986, and 1987), where well P2 is located, is contaminated by organic
and inorganic compounds and trace metals (Appendixes D and E).
Analyses of water from each of the eight wells indicated that
concentrations of volatile hydrocarbons are less than the detection limit,
with the exception of water from well PI that contained concentrations of
270 ug/L benzene, 410 ug/L ethyl benzene, and 740 ug/L xylenes. Base neutral
and chlorinated extractable compounds were more frequently detected in the
Detroit area than in the other three study areas. Eighteen organic compounds
were detected in water of well P2; the highest concentration was that of bis
(2-ethyl hexyl) phthalate (150 ug/L). Analyses of water by other laboratories
at several locations showed even higher concentrations of organic compounds
(Appendix E). Maximum concentrations of some of the organic compounds include
benzene, 23,000 ug/L; xylenes, 42,340 ug/L; trichloroethylene, 2,785 ug/L;
chloroform, 8,500 ug/L; naphthalene, 810,000 ug/L; acenaphthylene,
360,000 ug/L; and benzo (a) pyrene, 820,000
Analyses of water by the U.S. Geological Survey indicate that
concentrations of trace metals commonly are high in ground water. For
example, a copper concentration of 2,500 ug/L (well G17), a lead concentration
of 4,700 ug/L (well G17), and a nickel concentration of 1,500 ug/L (well P2)
were found. A pH greater than 11 was measured. Analyses by other
laboratories indicate even higher concentrations at some locations. Maximum
concentrations in ground water as great as the following have been found:
chromium, 26,600 ug/L; lead, 62,400 ug/L; mercury, 4,900 ug/L; and zinc,
67,500 ug/L. High concentrations of chloride (54,400 ug/L), cyanide
(58,800 ug/L), and dissolved solids (197,000 mg/L) were also reported in
ground water.
Transport of Chemical Substances to Connecting Channels by Ground Water
A computation of the loading of the connecting channels by chemical
substances transported by ground water does not seem feasible on the basis of
data currently available. Concentrations of organic compounds generally were
less than the detection limit; this makes loading computations impractical.
It is believed that samples collected for trace-metal analyses, because they
contained finely divided particulate matter in a number of instances, yielded
higher concentrations when analyzed than otherwise would have been the case.
Relation of land use to the chemical characteristics of ground water
U.S. Geological Survey land-use and land-cover maps (1979, 1984) were
used to determine land use in each of the ground-water discharge areas. The
results are summarized in table 6. Urban or built-up land includes
residential, commercial, industrial, transportation and other urban land.
Agricultural land is mostly cropland or pasture. Forests are deciduous,
evergreen, or a mixture of both types. Wetlands consist of both forested and
nonforested land. Barren lands in the study area are quarries, gravel pits,
or transitional areas. Land use designated as water in table 6 is either a
41
-------
Table 6.—Land use in the ground-water-discharge areas
[Unit is square mile. — means that land of that category
is not present. Data from U.S. Geological
Survey, 1979 and 1984]
Area
number
1
2
3
4a
4b
5
6
7a
7b
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Urban or
built-up
land
1.8
9.3
1.3
1.0
2.2
13.7
2.5
100.3
79
.5
4.6
6.0
9.4
1.0
7.4
—
.2
__
Agricultural
land
—
21.7
8.2
13.7
16.5
62.1
.8
2.5
—
—
—
—
14.9
.8
31.1
.6
6.3
1.8
Forest
land
0.1
6.7
1.6
3.8
5.2
3.7
.4
.7
—
—
—
—
1.7
18.5
23.7
6.4
42.2
18.4
Barren Total
Wetland land Water area
__ — — — 1 Q
i. . J
3.3 41.0
0.3 — 11.4
0.3 — — 18.8
3.6 — — 27.5
.6 .3 80.4
.9 — .1 4.7
.4 — 103.9
.4 — 79.4
.5
4.6
6.0
.3 .2 — 26.5
.9 ~ .2 21.4
2.2 1.4 — 65.8
.8 — — 7.8
3.4 — — 52.1
1.6 .2 — 22.0
42
-------
reservoir or a lake; surface streams and the connecting channels are not
included.
Partial chemical analyses made by county Health Departments commonly
report concentrations of iron, chloride, nitrate, sodium, and fluoride, and
values of hardness and specific conductance. These chemical characteristics
of ground water were found to be unrelated to land use in all discharge areas.
Similarly, results of analyses of water from U.S. Geological Survey wells did
not indicate a relation. Nitrogen and phosphorous concentrations were higher
in the Detroit area, probably because of the urban and industrial environment
rather than any specific use of land. Additional data will be necessary to
establish, for example, the effect of agricultural chemicals on ground water
and, ultimately, their effect on the connecting channels.
43
-------
SUMMARY
The Upper Great Lakes Connecting Channels (UGLCC) are the St. Marys, St.
Clair and Detroit Rivers, and Lake St. Clair. These bodies of water function
as conduits for the waters of the upper lakes (Superior, Michigan, and Huron)
to drain into the lower lakes (Erie and Ontario).
Bedrock of the St. Clair-Detroit area consists predominantly of shales
and limestones. Sandstone is the dominant bedrock type in the St. Marys area.
Glacial deposits range from less than 100 ft in thickness in the southern part
of the St. Clair-Detroit River area to more than 250 ft in thickness in the
northern part. A high-resolution seismic survey showed that the thickness of
the glacial deposits directly beneath the channels range from about 50 to 100
ft in the St. Clair River, from about 70 to over 150 ft in Lake St. Clair, and
from less than 10 to about 70 ft in the Detroit River. Seismic surveys also
show variability in types of deposits. Glacial deposits consist predominantly
of silty clay tills and lacustrine deposits containing minor beds of sand and
gravel.
Wells were installed at 25 locations throughout the four study areas.
All wells were completed in glacial deposits except three which were completed
in bedrock. Of these three, one well, near Port Huron, was completed in shale
and two wells, south of Detroit, were completed in limestone. Lithologic
data obtained during drilling confirmed and added detail to existing rock
descriptions.
Water-level data indicate that ground-water movement is toward the
connecting channels in all areas. Ground water discharges directly to
connecting channels from 16 areas. Five of these are in the St. Marys River
area, four are in the St. Clair River area, four are in the Lake St. Clair
area, and five are in the Detroit River area.
Base flow of perennial streams and Darcy's Law are the basis for ground-
water discharge estimates. Discharge to the channels is higher where more
permeable bedrock forms the channel, such as in the southern reach of the
Detroit River and in most of the St. Marys River. The following ground-water
flow rates have been estimated for each study area: St. Marys River area, 76
ft3/s; St. Clair River area, 11 ft3/s; Lake St. Clair area, 46 ft3/s; and
Detroit River area, 5A ft3/s.
Analyses of organic compounds, trace metals, and other dissolved
substances were made on water from 31 wells to determine the chemical
characteristics of ground water. Concentrations of volatile hydrocarbons
generally were less than the detection limit and, therefore, estimates of
transport to connecting channels was impractical. Base neutral and
chlorinated neutral extractable compounds were detected more frequently than
were volatile hydrocarbons, but information also is insufficient to make valid
estimates of amounts entering the connecting channels. Estimates of the
amounts of trace metals and other dissolved substances transported by ground
water were not made because of the finely divided particulate matter in the
water. Trace metals may have been adsorbed on the particulate matter, and
thus, contributed significantly to the measured concentrations. If so,
concentrations of trace metals in ground water discharged to the connecting
channels could be much lower than anlayses indicate. No relation between
water quality and land use was evident.
44
-------
REFERENCES
Aller, Linda, Bennett, T., Lehr, J. H., and Petty, R. J., 1985, DRASTIC: A
standardized system for evaluating ground water pollution potential using
hydrogeologic settings: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, p. 1-30.
Bredehoeft, J. D., Neuzil, C. E., and Milly, C. D., 1983, Regional flow in the
Dakota aquifer: A study of the role of confining layers: U.S.
Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2237, 45 p.
Brigham, R. J., 1971, Structural Geology of Southwestern Ontario and
Southeastern Michigan: Paper 71-2, Ontario Department of Mines and
northern Affairs, Petroleum Resources Section, 112 p.
Cunnings, T. R., Twenter, F. R., and Holtschlag, D. J., 1984, Hydrology and
land use in Van Buren County, Michigan: U.S. Geological Survey Water-
Resources Investigations Report 84-4112, 124 p.
Desaulniers, D. E., Cherry, J. A. and Fritz, P. 1981, Origin, Age and Movement
of Pore Water in Argillaceous Quaternary Deposits at Four Sites in
Southwestern Ontario: Journal of Hydrology, 50, p. 231-257.
Freeze, R. A., and Cherry, J. A., 1979, Groundwater: Prentice-Hall, Inc.,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 604 p.
Gorman, R. F., and Akeley, R. P., Jr., 1978, The impact of sanitary landfills
on water quality in southeast Michigan: Southeast Michigan Council of
Governments, p. 103-278.
Haeni, F. P., and Melvin, R. L., 1984, High resolution continuous seismic
reflection study of a stratified drift deposit in Connecticut: In
Proceedings of Surface and Borehole Geophysical Methods in Ground-Water
Investigations, San Antonio, Texas, p. 237-256.
Haeni, F. P., 1986, Application of continuous seismic reflection methods to
hydrologic studies: Ground Water, v. 24, no. 1, p. 23-31.
Jackson, R. E., 1987, Environment Canada's Studies of Hydrogeology of the
St. Clair River Valley: National Water Research Institute, Environment
Canada, unpublished report, 9 p.
Leverett, F. and Taylor, F. B., 1915, The Pleistocene of Indiana and Michigan
and history of the Great Lakes: U.S. Geological Survey, Monograph 53,
529 p.
Martin, H. M., compiler, 1936, The centennial geological map of the northern
peninsula of Michigan (and) The centennial geological map of the southern
peninsula of Michigan: Michigan Deptartment of Conservation, Geological
Survey Division Publication 39, Geology ser. 33, 2 sheets.
Martin, H. M., 1955, Map of the surface formations of the southern peninsula
of Michigan: Michigan Geological Survey, Deptartment of Conservation,
Publication 49, 2 sheets.
45
-------
Mason, S., M. G. Sklash, S. Scott and C. Pugsley, 1986, An assessment of
seepage of ground water into the St. Clair River near Sarnia, Ontario,
Canada: Final report for Environment Canada, Great Lakes Inst. of the
University of Windsor, 175 p.
Michigan Department of Natural Resources, 1986, Controlled site listing:
Lansing, Groundwater Quality Division, 188 p.
1987, Michigan sites of environmental contamination priority lists:
Lansing, Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Groundwater Quality
Division, 213 p.
Mozola, A. J., 1969, Geology for land and ground water development in Wayne
County, Michigan: Michigan Geological Survey Investigations, no. 3,
25 p.
Sherzer, W. H., 1913, Geological report on Wayne County: Michigan Geological
and Biological Survey, Publication 12, Geological Survey 9, 388 p.
Twenter, F. R., 1975, Ground water and geology—southeastern Michigan: U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, Detroit, Michigan, 143 p.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1971, Soil Survey of Macomb County, Michigan:
U.S. Government Printing Office, 110 p., 36 sheets, scale 1:20,000.
1974, Soil Survey of St. Clair County, Michigan: U.S. Government
Printing Office, 113 p., 62 sheets, scale 1:20,000.
1977, Soil Survey of Wayne County Area, Michigan: U.S. Government
Printing Office, 83 p., 53 sheets, 1:15,840.
1981, Soil Survey of Monroe County, Michigan: U.S. Government Printing
Office, 138 p., 86 sheets, scale 1:15,840.
1982, Soil Survey of Oakland County, Michigan: U.S. Government Printing
Office, 167 p., 134 sheets, scale 1:15,840.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1986a, Amendment to National Oil and
Hazardous Substances contingency Plan; national priorities list, final
rule and proposed rule: Federal Register, v. 51, no. Ill, June 10, 1986,
p. 21053-21112.
1986b, Maximum contaminant levels (subpart B of Part 141, national
interim primary drinking-water regulations): U.S. Code of Federal
Regulations, Title 40, Parts 100 to 149, revised as of July 1, 1986,
p. 524-528.
-1986c, Secondary maximum contaminant levels (section 143.3 of part 143,
national secondary drinking-water regulations): U.S. Code of Federal
Regulations, Title 40, Parts 100 to 149, revised as of July 1, 1986,
p. 587-590.
46
-------
U.S. Geological Survey, 1968, North Atlantic coast regional water-resources
study: Geological Survey Research 1968, U.S. Geological Survey
Professional Paper 600-A, p. A49-A50.
1979, Land use and land cover, 1975-76, Detroit, Mich.; Ontario, Can.
(U.S. part only): U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 79-425-1,
1 sheet.
1984, Land use and land cover, 1980, Sault Sainte Marie, Mich., U.S.;
Ontario, Can. (U.S. part only): U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report
84-035-1, 1 sheet.
VanLier, K. E., and Deutsch, Morris, 1958, Reconnaissance of the ground-water
resources of Chippewa County, Michigan: Michigan Geological Survey
Progress Report 17, 56 p.
VanWyckhouse, R. J., 1966, A Study of test borings from the Pleistocene of the
southeastern Michigan glacial lake plain, Wayne County, Michigan:
Unpublished M.S. thesis, Department of Geology, Wayne State University,
85 p.
Veatch, J. 0., Schoenmann, L. R., Gray, A. L., Simmons, C. S., and Foster,
Z. C., 1927, Soil Survey of Chippewa County, Michigan: U.S. Department
of Agriculture, 44 p., 1 plate.
47
-------
DEFINITION OF TERMS
Altitude. Vertical distance of a point or line above or below sea level. In
this report, all altitudes are above sea level.
Altitude contour. An imaginary line connecting points of equal altitude,
whether the points are on the land surface or on a potantiemetrie or
water-table surface.
Aquifer. A formation, group of formations, or part of a formation that
contains sufficient saturated permeable material to yield significant
quantities of water to wells and springs. It is also called a ground-
water reservoir.
Base flow. The discharge entering stream channels as inflow from ground water
or other delayed sources; sustained or fair weather flow of streams.
Bedrock.. Designates consolidated rocks underlying glacial deposits.
Concentration. The weight of dissolved solids or sediment per unit volume of
water expressed in milligrams per liter (mg/L) or micrograms per liter
(ug/L).
Connecting channels. In this report, these bodies of water serve as conduits
for the waters of the Upper Great Lakes (Superior, Michigan, and Huron)
to drain into the lower Lakes (Erie and Ontario). The channels are the
St. Marys, St. Clair and Detroit Rivers, and Lake St. Clair.
Discharge. The rate of flow of a stream; reported in cubic feet per second
(ft3/s). Also, in this report, the rate of flow of ground water to
surface water bodies; reported in cubic feet per second per square mile
[(ft3/s)/mi2].
Elevation. Vertical distance of a point on land or surface-water surface
above or below sea level.
Grain size. The classification range for the diameter of particles, in
millimeters, is as follows:
Gravel greater than 2.0
Sand, very coarse 1.0 - 2.0
Sand, coarse 0.5 - 1.0
Sand, medium 0.25 - 0.5
Sand, fine 0.125 - 0.25
Sand, very fine 0.0625 - 0.125
Silt and clay less than 0.0625
Ground water. Water that is in the saturated zone from which wells, springs,
and ground-water runoff are supplied.
Ground-water runoff. Ground water that has discharged into stream channels by
seepage from saturated earth materials.
48
-------
DEFINITION OF TERMS—Continued
Head. The height of the surface of a water column above a standard datum that
can be supported by the static pressure at a given point.
Hydraulic conductivity. The volume of water at the prevailing kinematic
viscosity that will move in unit time under a unit hydraulic gradient
through a unit area measured at right angles to the direction of flow.
In general terms, hydraulic conductivity is the ability of a porous
medium to transmit water.
Hydraulic gradient. The change in static head per unit distance in a given
direction. If not specified, the direction is generally understood to be
that of the maximum rate of decrease in head.
Permeability. A measure of the relative ease with which a porous medium can
transmit a liquid under a potential gradient. It is a property of the
medium alone, and is independent of the nature of the fluid and of the
force field.
Potentiometric surface. In aquifers, the levels to which water will rise in
tightly cased wells. More than one potentiometric surface is required to
describe the distribution of head. The water table is a particular
potentiometric surface.
Recharge. The process by which water is infiltrated and is added to the zone
of saturation. It is also the quantity of water added to the zone of
saturation.
Runoff. That part of precipitation that appears in streams} the water
draining from an area. When expressed in inches, it is the depth to
which an area would be covered if all the water draining from it in a
given period were uniformly distributed on its surface.
Specific conductance. A measure of the ability of water to conduct an
electric current, expressed in microsiemens per centimeter at 25 degrees
Celsius (uS/cm). Because the specific conductance is related to amount
and type of dissolved material, it is used for approximating the
dissolved-solids concentration of water. For most natural waters, the
ratio of dissolved- solids concentration (in milligrams per liter) to
specific conductance (in uS/cm) is in the range of 0.5 to 0.8.
Water table. That surface in an unconfined water body at which the pressure
is atmospheric. It is defined by levels at which water stands in
properly constructed wells.
49
-------
APPENDIXES
50
-------
APPENDIX A: QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL PLAN FOR STUDY
Quality Assurance Project Plan
Upper Great Lakes Connecting Channels Study
U.S. Geological Survey
Denver, Colorado
APPROVED
T. Ray Cummings, Project Officer
U.S. Geological Survey
APPROVED
. Seeley,
AfiaTytical Services, U.S. Geological Survey
DATE ?/ ? lT
/
APPROVE
. Miller, QA Officer
U.S. Geological Survey
/
APPROVED
y , Project Officer
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
, (5A Offcer
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
DATE
A-l
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
QA Project
Element Page No.
Title Page i
Tab! e of Contents i i
1 Project Name 1
2 Date of Project Initiation 1
3 Project Officer 1
4. Project QA Coordinator 1
5. Project Description 1
6. Schedule of Tasks and Products 3
7. Organization and Responsibility 5
8. Data Quality Requirements and Assessments 5
9. Sampling Procedures 7
10. Sample Tracking Procedures 8
11. Calibration Procedures and .Preventive Maintenance 9
12. Documentation, Data Reduction, and Reporting 10
13. Data Validation 11
14. Audits 12
15. Corrective Actions 12
16. Reports 12
References 13
Appendix 13
Attachment 1 18
Attachment 2 19
Attachment 3 19
Attachment 4 21
A-2
-------
UPPER GREAT LAKES CONNECTING CHANNELS STUDY
a/
Quality Assurance/Quality Control Plan —
1. Project Name - Study of Ground-Water Movement near Upper Great Lakes
Connecting Channels (Interagency Agreement No. DW14931558-01-0)
2. Date of Project Initiation - July 1, 1985
3. Project Officer - T. Ray Cummings
4. Project QA Coordinator - John B. Miller
5. Project Description -
A. Information and Objectives
Information on the movement of ground water to Great Lakes connecting
channels in Michigan is inadequate for an evaluation of its impact on the
water quality of the channels. Contaminants from landfills, waste-disposal
sites, and areas of known ground-water contamination could be a significant
factor in determining water quality of the Great Lakes, In areas adjacent
to the St. Marys River, Lake St. Clair, the St. Clair River and the Detroit
River, more than 100 hazardous waste sites lie within 12 miles of the channels.
Five of these sites are on the National Priority List. Upward movement of
chemical substances from deep geologic strata, either from natural sources
or from areas of deep injection of wastes, is also a possibility.
The principal objectives of the study are to (1) determine the geologic
conditions near connecting channels, (2) determine configuration of the water
table and direction of ground-water flow, (3) determine the chemical and
physical characteristics of ground water, with particular attention to char-
acteristics near known hazardous-waste sites, (4) access the movement of
dissolved substances from deep geologic strata to the connecting channels,
and (5) assess the ground-water contribution of natural occurring substances
to the connecting channels.
a/ The plan covers collection, sampling, and reporting of water-quality
3ata. An Appendix providing related information on well installation is
included.
A-3
-------
B. Data Usage
Data on the chemical and physical characteristics of ground water must
be collected to meet the principal objectives of the UGLCC (Upper Great
Lakes Connecting Channels) project. Samples of water will be analyzed
from wells installed at appropriate locations in the project area. These
analyses, used in conjunction with existing chemical data, will form the
basis for computing the amounts of dissolved chemical substances discharged
to the connecting channels by ground water. In addition, chemical analyses
will permit a determination of the relative importance of individual
waste sites in affecting water quality of the channels, and suggest those
locations where further monitoring and/or studies of a more detailed
nature are merited.
C. Sampling Design and Rationale
Waste sites in the project area will be ranked using a modified
DRASTIC procedure. Based on the ranking, those having the greatest
potential for affecting the water quality of the connecting channels will
be identified. Samples of ground water will be obtained for analysis from
wells at, near, or downgradient from, each site. The specific locations
of the sampling sites will be determined when ranking has been completed.
D. Sampling Parameters and Frequency of Collection
Samples for laboratory analysis of ground water will be collected at
sites within a 12-mile band adjacent to the St. Marys River, the St. Clair
River, Lake St. Clair, and the Detroit River in Michigan. Each well will
be sampled once. Attachment 1 shows the chemical analyses to be made.
Approximately 30 samples will be obtained.
A-4
-------
E. Parameter Table (See Attachment 1)
F. Analytical Method and Documentation
Standard operating procedures are contained in Skougstad and others
(1979), and Wershaw and others (1983), which are cited uner REFERENCES at
the end of this plan. Footnotes to Attachment 1 also cite minor modifica-
tions methods.
6. Schedule of Tasks and Products
Attachment 2 shows the anticipated time frame for the sampling,
laboratory analysis reporting, and interpretation of ground-water quality
data obtained as part of this project.
7. Organization and Responsibility
A. Project
T. Ray Cummings, District Chief, WRD, USGS
(Overall Quality Assurance/Quality Control, Overall Project Coordination,
Overall Data Interpretation and Reporting)
Sampling
B. Laboratory organization and responsibility
(Analytical work will be performed in the USGS Denver Laboratory.
Telephone numbers are FTS 303-776-5345, commercial (303-236-5345)
Laboratory Analyses - Robert J. Keck
James H. Schoen
Laboratory QC - Berwyn E. Jones
Data Processing Activity - James E. Paschal, Jr.
Data Processing QC - James E. Paschal, Jr.
A-5
-------
Laboratory organization and responsibility - Continued
James L. Seeley
Chief
Branch Analytical Services
Berwyn E. Jones
Lab QA Officer
Saundra S. Duncan
Laboratory Chief
James E. Paschal, Jr.
Data Processing Activity
Data Processing QC
Robert J. Kedo
Organic Analyses
James M. Schoen:
Inorganic Analyses
A-6
-------
8. Data Quality Requirements and Assessments (See Attachment 3)
(a) Accuracy
• Accuracy will be measured by calculating X Recovery of Surrogate and/or
matrix spikes. % Recovery is calculated as follows3.
R=100(F-I)
A
where R - % recovery
F * analytical result obtained on the spiked sample (jig/L)
I = analytical result obtained on unspiked sample (pig/L)
A * concentration of spike added to the sample (jig/l)
Surrogate spikes will be added to every sample, blank and standard for
VOC, BNA, and CNE. Matrix spikes will be employed, as applicable, for other
parameters.
(b) Precision
Precision will be measured by calculating the Relative Percent Difference
(RPD) between duplicate analyses. RPD is calculated as follows:
RPD=200(A-B)
A+B
where RPO 3 Relative Percent Difference
A * Analytical result obtained on one of two duplicate analyses
B a Analytical result obtained on second duplicate analyses
(c) Data Completeness
The following will be used as validation criteria for data completeness:
1. The samples will be analyzed for all parameters requested.
2. Acceptance criteria rely more heavily on surrogate recoveries than
on matrix recoveries and duplicate values:
a. If all surrogate and matrix spikes recovery values are within
acceptance limits, and there is no blank contamination, all data
are acceptable.
A-7
-------
b. For organic analyses, the blank shall not contain more than the
quantisation limit of any analyte except methylene' chloride,
benzene, toluene, and common phthalate esters. The above named
constituents in a blank shall not exceed two times the
quantisation limit.
For inorganic analyses, the blank shall not contain more than
two times the quantisation limit for any analyte.
c. Duplicate values exceeding the relative percent difference limit
do not by themselves warrant data rejection. Duplicate values
should be evaluated with other QA data on a case-by-case basis.
d. Matrix recovery values which exceed acceptance limits do not by
themselves warrant data rejection. Matrix recovery values
should be evaluated with other QA data on a case-by-case basis.
e. Recovery values of matrix spikes that fall outside the
acceptance limits are considered on a case-by-case basis.
Generally, 1f more than half of the recovery data are outside
acceptance limits, the data are rejected.
A-8
-------
9. Sampling Procedures
Samples of water from wells will be collected using a custom fabricated
all Teflon Kemmerer sampler, or by using a submersible pump and R-3400
Tygon tubing. Prior use in the field sampling equipment will be scrubbed
with tap water (and detergent if necessary), and rinsed with tap water,
followed by several rinses with distilled water. A final rinse and/or
wiping with alcohol will be made. In the field, samplers will be rinsed
and/or'wiped with alcohol and allowed to dry between samplings. Water
from the sampler will be transferred to sample containers with minimum
agitation. USGS Central Laboratories Request Forms (Attachment 4) will
be completed in the field at the time of sampling. Samples will be
placed in a cooler in ice for air mailing to the laboratory. Samples
for analysis of organic compounds will be double (zip-locked) bagged.
Sample containers will be obtained from the USGS Denver Central
Laboratory. Glass containers for organic analyses will be washed, rinsed
with organic compound-free water and fired overnight at 350°C. Polyethylene
and glass containers for inorganic trace-metal constituents will be acid-
rinsed with dilute nitric acid. The following table shows sample size
and type of container.
A-9
-------
Sample
Parameter Size Container
VOC 40 mii/ Glass
BNA 1000 mL Glass
CNE 1000 mL Glass
4-AAP phenols 1000 mL Glass '
Solvent Extractables 1000 mL Glass
Nutrients 250 mL High density polyethylene
TOC 125 mL Glass
Cyanide 250 mL High density polyethylene
Mercury 200 mL Glass
Trace metals 1000. mL High density polyethylene
As, Se, Sb 250 mL High density polyethylene
—' Duplicate samples are to be submitted for VOC.
10. Sample Tracking Procedures
A. Source of containers
1. 40-mL VOC vial glass, washed, rinsed with deionized water, and
fired.
2. 1-L glass bottle, washed, rinsed with deionized water, and fired.
3. 4-oz. glass TOC, washed, rinsed with deionized water, and fired.
4. 8-oz. glass Hg, washed with dilute HNOj, and rinsed with deionized
water.
5. 8-oz., 32-oz. Polyethylene, washed with dilute HN03, and rinsed
with deionized water.
6. 8-oz. Polyethyene, non-acid-rinsed.
A-10
-------
B. Quality control of containers
Field personnel will order the entire season's anticipated container
requirements by April. All containers of each type will be prepared in a
single batch and capped immediately to avoid contamination. For each
container type, 3 percent of the shipment will be taken as a random sample
for quality control.
In the quality control procedure, containers will be filled with Type
I water, and the appropriate preservative, if any, added. The water will
be submitted to the laboratory as sample for analysis. If any analyte is
found at a concentration greater than three times the quantitation limit,
a new batch of the bottle type will be prepared. Containers will be
immediately sealed after preparation and, if found free of contamination,
will be shipped to the field office.
11. Calibration Procedures and Preventive Maintenance
Procedures for calibration and quality control for inorganic and gas
chromatographic determinations are contained in Friedman and Erdmann (1982),
Standard spectrometers are tuned to meet USEPA specifications using
BFB and DFTPP for VOC and BNA, respectively. Organic standard solutions
are obtained from USEPA or Supelco, Inc. Stock solutions are prepared in
the laboratory. Pesticide grade solvents are used (Burdick and Jackson,
or equivalent).
Most maintenance will be performed on an as-needed basis. Adequate
supplies of field and laboratory materials will be maintained to be avail-
able as needed. Redundance of instrumentation is available and most
instruments are under manufacturer's preventive maintenance contract.
A-ll
-------
An equipment log book, which remains with the instrument except when
instrument is sent out for repairs, is maintained. The log book contains
records of usage, maintenance, calibration, and repairs.
12. Documentation, Data Reduction, and Reporting
A. Documentation
Field data are recorded on USGS Central Laboratory Request Forms, and
in U.S. Department of Interior approved DI-6 field note books.
B. Data Reduction and Reporting
The data reduction scheme, principal criteria used to validate data,
and methods used to treat outliers are contained in Friedman and Erdman
(1982), Wershaw and others (1983), and Skougstad and others (1979). The
data flow and reporting scheme for organic compounds in the laboratory
are as follows:
GC/MS
No!
Priority Yes!
Pollutants?
V
Forward
Library
Search
Nol
I
Identification
Reverse
Library
Check
(RLC)
Quantitation
*• Program
Yes1.
Hard Copy
USGS File
Reverse Library Check
Library Search
Spectrum
Quantitation Calculation
Specific Ion RLC
Copy Calibration and
Background
Copy of Instrument
Conditions for Each
Set of Samples
A-12
-------
The key individual who handles data in the organic laboratory is Ralph
White. A chemist will review the data and check for calculation errors for
every analysis; a second chemist will review the data again for errors; data
will be entered into the computer file, and then checked for data transfer
errors. The key individual who handles data in the inorganic lab is James
Schoen. Other chemists will check data and calculations; data will be entered
into the computer file, and then will be checked for transfer errors.
13. Data Validation
Surrogate recoveries, precision estimates of the duplicate sample, and
laboratory blanks will be checked.
The laboratory will perform checks by using replicates, spikes, and
reagent blanks. Surrogates will be added to each organic compound analysis,
and method blanks and matrix spikes will be used for each set. Control charts
will be used as applicable for recovery and repeatability.
Data from the laboratory will be reviewed by the QA official for the
project, and then will be sent to the District water-quality specialist. Data
approved by the water-qua!ity specialist or project chief will be placed in
WATSTORE file, the QA official will check the data to assure accurate
transcription.
A-13
-------
14. Audits
U.S. Geological Survey laboratory has successfully performed when
autited during the past six months.
15. Corrective Action
When routine QA/QC procedures indicate there is a problem with accuracy,
precision, completeness, or representatives of data, then corrective action
will be instituted. This action may include:
1. Repair or recalibration of equipment.
2. Retraining or reassignment of personnel.
3. Identifying and removing sources of contamination.
Field and laboratory personnel will report any problems with instruments,
analysis, or anomalous data to supervisors. Supervisors will report problems
and solution of problem to QA project member.
All data will be reviewed against QA requirements. Results not meeting
these criteria will be rejected unless results are decided to be mutually
acceptable to USEPA and USGS. If the data are rejected, samples will be
reanalyzed. When samples are exhausted, a mutual decision between USGS and
EPA will be made to determine wheter re-sampling will be done.
16. Reports
Laboratory reports will be provided for the overall project at the
completion of sample analysis. The reports will contain quality assurance/
quality control information, results of any performance or system audits,
and proposals for corrective action if required.
A-14
-------
REFERENCES
American Public Health and others, 1985, Standard methods for the examination
of water and wastewater (16th -ed): Washington, D.C., American Public
Health Association, Inc., 1268 p.
Friedman, L. C., and Erdmann, D. E., 1982, Quality assurance practices for the
chemical and biological analyses of water and fluvial sediments: U.S.
Geological Survey Techniques of Water Resources Investigations, Book 5,
Chapter A6, 181 p.
Longbottom, J. E., and Lichtenberg, 0. J., eds., 1982,' Methods for organic
chemical analysis of municipal and industrial waste water: U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Report No. 600/4082-057.
Skougstad, M. W., Fishman, M. J., Friedman, L. C., Erdmann, D. E., and Duncan,
S. "S., eds., 1979, Methods for determination of inorganic substances in
water and fluvial sediments: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-
Resources investigations, Book 5, Chapter Al,' 626 p.
Wershaw, R. L., Fishman, M. J., Grabbe, R. R., and Lowe, L. E., eds., 1983,
Methods for the determination of organic substances in water and fluvial
sediments: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report.
A-15
-------
APPENDIX
DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF WELLS
General
Monitoring wells for collecting water-quality samples and observation
wells for collecting water-level data will be installed by a contract
drilling company according to USGS (U.S. Geological Survey) designed
specifications. Personnel of the USGS will supervise well installation
and will compile a written lithologic log as drilling progresses. Most
drilling will be with a hollow-stem continuous auger and/or cable tool.
At sites where bedrock is at or very near surface, air rotary may be
used. The wells will be completed in either glacial deposits or bedrock
and will penetrate to at least 5 feet below the water table or 4 feet
into the aquifer. Casing and screens will be steam-cleaned to ensure
that all oils, greases, and waxes are removed. Concrete grout will be
used to seal the upper most 5 to 10 feet of annular space. All wells will
be capped with a galvanized steel cap and locked.
Samples of rock materials will be collected at 5-foot intervals and -
at significant changes in lithology. A split-spoon sampler or bailer
will be used to retrieve samples. Well development, with steam-cleaned
equipment, will proceed until the discharge water is clean and free of
sediment to the extent possible.
A survey point will be established, usually on the north side, from
which water-level measurements are made. A survey will be made to deter-
mine the altitude of the point.
A-16
-------
Monitoring Wells
All monitoring wellsi/ will be constructed of 4-inch diameter stainless
steel 316 threaded casing in the saturated zone and 4-inch diameter gal-
vanized steel in the unsaturated zone. The drilled hole will have a
6-inch diameter allowing for .an annular space of about a 1-inch radius
for placement of the filter pack and annular-space seal (bentonite pellets,
bentonite, and neat cement). In bedrock, the zone being sampled will be
finished as open hole with a filter pack (clean quartz sand or chemically
inert beads. Annular-space seal will be installed around the casing
above the open hole unless the formation is cohesionless sand or gravel.
In glacial deposits, the zone being sampled will be finished with a 4-foot,
stainless steel 316 screen set in place with a K-packer. A filter pack
will be placed in the annular space around the screen and about 1-foot
above. Annular-space seal will be added above the filter pack if the
formation is other than cohesionless sand or gravel.
Observation Wells
All observation wells will be constructed of 4-inch diameter galvan-
ized steel casing. The drilled hole will have the same diameter as the
casing. During drilling the drill bit and casing will proceed down the
hole almost simultaneously in order that no annular space will occur in
the hole below a depth of S to 10 feet. No drilling mud will be used.
In bedrock, the zone being tested will be finished with 4-foot stainless
steel screen set in place with a K-packer. The annular space in the upper
5 to 10 feet of the hole resulting from removal of the work pipe will be
grouted.
—' Ntonitoring wells will be constructed in accordance with Ground Water
Technical Enforcement Guidance Document; March 21, 1985 prepared by
the Otfice of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, USEPA.
A-17
-------
ATTACHMENT 1
Parameter Table
Parameter
4-AAP Phenols
Solvent Extractables
Ammonia Nitrogen
Phosphorus
TOC
Chloride
TDS
Cyanide
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Cobalt
Chromium, total
Copper
Iron
Mercury
Nickel
Lead
Selenium
Analytical-/
Method Reference
0-3110-83
0-3108-83!/
1-4522-85
1-4600-78
0-3100-83
1-2188-83
Std. Methods 209B
1-4302-78
1-4062-78
1-1472-78^
1-1472-78
1-3136-78 or
1-1472-78
1-3240-78 " or
1-1472-78
1-3238-78
1-3271-78 or
1-1472-78
1-3381-78 or
1-1472-78
1-3462-78
1-3500-78
1-3400-78
1-4667-78
Sample
Preservation
LC 0052—
LC 0127-/
RC*/
RC
LC Oll4/
FUZ/
Rt£/
LC 0023—
RAH!°/
RA1*/
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RAM1!/
RA
RA
RAH
Maximum
Holding
Time
14 days
30 days
4 days
4 days
14 days
28 days
30 days
14 days
6 months
6 months
6 months
6 months
6 months
6 months
6 months
6 months
28 days
6 months
6 months
6 months
A-18
-------
rarr.~C'i.or Table (cont.)
Parameter
Zinc
Antimony
vocil/
BIIAiS/
CNE^/
Analytical
Method Reference
1-1472-78
1-3055-78
0-3115-83 or
EPA Method 624
0-3118-83,0-3117-83
or EPA Method 625
0-3104-83 or
Sample
Preservation
RA
RAH
GVC^/
scciZ/
GCC
Maximum
Holding
Time
6 months
6 months
14 days
Extract sample - 7 days
Analyze - 40 days
Extract sample - 7 days
EPA Method 608 Analyze - 40 days
FOOTNOTES
I/ As specified in REFERENCE Section.
y Add 2 ml 8.5X H3P04 (to pH 4) and 10 ml CuS04 solution (100 g/L) to 1 L sample.
Chill and maintain at 4°C.
3/ A FID scan with methylene chloride extraction will be used to obtain a detection
~ limit of 0.01 mg/L if detection of solvent extractables is significant.
4_/ Add 2.0 ml H2S04 to 1 L (to pH 2). Chill and maintain at 4°C.
5/ Add 1 HgCl2/NaCl tablet or ampoule, chill and maintain at 4°C.
6/ Acidify with H2S04 to pH<2.0. Chill sample and maintain at 4°C.
y Filter sample.
JJ/ Untreated.
9/ Add NaOH to pH >12, chill and maintain at 4°C.
10/ Acidify with HNOs to pH <2. A separate bottle is required for the arsenic,
~" selenium, and antimony determinations.
ll/ ICP procedure will include digestion step.
12_/ Acidify with HN03 to pH <2.
13/ Add 1 HNOs/K2Cr207, ampoule.
14/ VOC » Volatile Organics Compounds.
IS/ Exclude air bubbles by completely filling vial. Protect sample from sunlight,
chill, and maintain at 4 C.
16/ BNA » Base/Neutral/Acid Extractables.
177 Chill sample and maintain at 4°C.
18/ CNE = Chlorinated Neutral Extractables.
A-19
-------
ATTACHMENT 2
Schedule of Activities
1986 1987
September October November December January February
Field Sampling ^ I
Activity
Sample Submission | |
to Laboratory
Analysis of Samples I '
Reporting of Analytical j 1
Results by Laboratory
Review of Analytical | 1
Results by Project Office
Entry into STORET ''
Interpretation of 1 )
Laboratory Results
Submission of Interpretive M
report containing
tabulation of analytical
data
A-20
-------
ATTACHMENT 3
Data Quality Requirements ard Assessments
Parameter
4-AAP phenols
Solvent
Extractions
Ammonia Nitrogen
Phosphorus
TOC
Chloride
IDS
Cyanide
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Cobalt
Chromium, total
Copper
Iron
Quantisation
Limit (mg/L)
0.001
i.&
.014
.009
0.5
!.<#
2.0
0.005
0.001
0.01
0.001
0.001
0.002
0.002
0.001
0.046
Sample
Matrix
G.W.i/
G.W.
G.W.
G.W.
G.W.
Filtered
G.W. .
G.W.
G.W.
G.W.
G.W.
G.W.
G.W.
G.W.
G.W.
G.W.
G.W.
Estimated-' Accuracy
Accuracy Protocol
70-130 SRM^7
MBl/
70-130 MB
80-120 SRM
MB
" SRM
MB '
MS*/
MB
SRM
MB
SRM
MB
SRM
MB
SRM
MB
• B
n •
• a
a a
60-140 SRM
MB
80-120 SRM
MB
SRM
MB
ps t imatedi' Prec i s i on
Precision Protocol
<30X RPD Replicate
Sample
<30% RPD
<20X RPD
n ti
n ii
ii n
ii n
ii n
n n
II U
n ii
n n
H II
<40X RPD "
n n
" n
A-21
-------
;\1 l.-\U 1 IC.i J j- -L.UJJ LlJlUL U
Data Quality Requirements and Assessments (cent.)
Parameter
Mercury
Nickel
Lead
Selenium
Zinc
Antimony
VOC
Base Neutral
Extractables
Acid Extractables
CNE 0.005-0
Quantitation
Limit (mg/L)
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.003
0.001
1-5 |ig/L
5-10 jig/L
5-40 jig/L
.040 (ig/L
Sample
Matrix
G.W.
G.W.
G.W.
G.W.
G.W.
G.W.
G.W.
G.W.
G.W.
G.W.
Estimated
Accuracy
80-120
11
70-130
80-120
It
If
70-130
40-120
20-120
70-130
Accuracy Estimated Precision
Protocol Precision Protocol
SRM <30% RPD Replicate
MB Samples
SRM
MB
SRM "
MB
SRM
MB
SRM "
MB
SRM
MB
MB
SS, MS
MB
SS, MS
MB
SS, MS
MB
FOOTNOTES . ._ '• - _
I/ At 10X quantisation limit.
y G.W. * Ground Water. / T -_
3/ SRM • Standard Reference Material.
4_/ MB - Method Blank.
5_/ MS - Matrix Spike.
6/ A quantitation limit of 1.0 mg/L is satisfactory because concentration levels in
project study are known to exceed 1 mg/L.
TJ SS « Surrogate Spike.
Frequency: SRMs: 1 per 10 samples
Duplicates: 1 per 20 samples
Blanks: 1 per 20 samples
Matrix spikes: 1 per 10 samples
Each set of samples will contain at least one of each of the above.
A-22
-------
CENTRAL LABORATORIES ANALYTICAL SERVICES REQUEST FORM ATTACHMENT 4
Special Handling
Hazardous material
(Circle as appropriate and
exp.lain in record 5)
Site Type (circle one)
SW - Surface Water LK - Lake
GW- Ground Water ES - Estuary
Field sample ID ™ ' Hreclpitaiion s>H - bpniig
Station Name
File Deposition
(Circle one)
Q -WATSTORE [_
X -Lab File
h|9| I I LU LLJ
Year Month Day
Begin Date
Field Office
Record 1 - Sample
I I I I I I I III
Laboratory ID
I I I I I III III II
Time Month Day Ti
Composite End Date
Project Collector Phone (FTS)
Identification
I I I I I I I I I I I I I
Station ID or Unique Number
III III I I I I I I II I I II II I II I
me State District/ County Proiect Account #
Code User Code Code
Record 2 - Analysis codes and schedules
H or 9
s
w
ample Geologic Analysis Analysis Hydrologic Sample Hydrologic
edium Unit Status Source Condition Type Event
Schedule #1 Schedule #2 Schedule #3 Schedule »4 Schedule #5
Record 3 - Laboratory codes to be added to (A) or deleted from (O) above schedules
Code A/D
Code A/D Code A/D Code A/D Code A/D Code A/D Code A/D Code A/D
Code A/D
WATSTORE
Code
00065
Gage Height
82398
Code A/D
Lab Value
Code
332
(ft)
1201
Sampling Method Code
00095
21
Code A/0 Code A/O
Record 4 -
Remark WATSTORE
Code Code
00061
Discharge,
00020
Air Temp.
00400
Code
Field values to be
Lab Value
Code
61
Instantaneous (cfs)
65
-------
APPENDIX B: GEOLOGIC SECTIONS
^S'liiiiiiiiiiiii:1!!:!!!!!:^!'!!:!
^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilijijiijliiilililiii
ISiliiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiii^iiiiiiijiiliil
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiNsiM'!'
o
<
u.
Ijj IE
-I 3
CD CO
"~ O O
er < o
ui t- £ ,
i- 2 2 j
< o uj uj
5 o o S
I I I
C
nS
oo
O
O
0-i
CO
01
G
O
U
to
CJ
• l-l
60
O
i—t
O
QJ
I
I
-------
tt)
f
640
-480
2 KILOMETERS
Vertical scale greatly
exaggerated
EXPLANATION
DESCRIPTION OF UNITS
Surflcla! depoalta Bedrock
C3 Sand E3 S«nd«ton«
E3 Sand and gravel E53 Shale
E3 Clay and till
WATER TABLE
CONTACT
BEDROCK SURFACE
1 WELL
Figure 15.—Geologic section B-B1, near llarysville, Michigan.
-------
Datum l» »ea level
2 MILES
2 KILOMETERS
Vertical scale greatly
exaggerated
EXPLANATION
DESCRIPTION OF UNITS
SurflcW deposit. Bedrock
I.V .'I Sand E3 Sandstone
£53 Sand and gravel tfjt Shale
E3 Clay and tit
WATER TABLE
CONTACT
BEDROCK SURFACE
i WELL
Figure 16.—Geologic section C-C', near Port Huron, Michigan.
-------
w
400
•400
Datum to sea (aval
012 MILES
0 1 2 KILOMETERS
exaggerated
EXPLANATION
DESCRIPTION OF UNITS
Surflclal deposits Bedrock
[T~l sand l'-'-;| sandstone
CD Sand and gravel S3 Shale
£3 Clay and till
WATER TABLE
CONTACT
BEDROCK SURFACE
1 WELL
SC3 WASTE-SITE—Location and number
Figure 17.—Geologic section D-D1, near Marine City, Michigan.
-------
3 :->:-»! -480
440
Datum Is set level
I
2 MILES
1 2 KILOMETERS
Vertical scale greatly
exaggerated
EXPLANATION
DESCRIPTION OF UNITS
Surflclal deposits Bedrock
ED Sand EH Shale
S3 Sand and gravel
E3 Clay and till
WATER TABLE
CONTACT
BEDROCK SURFACE
1 WELL
MAS WASTE-SITE—Location and number
.440
Figure 18.—Geologic section E-E1, near Fraser, Michigan.
-------
w
580- ---------
640- ?>>::>-:
600-
460-
420-
380-
Datum la aea level
-580
-S40
1 MILE
1 KILOMETER
Vertical scate greatly
exaggerated
EXPLANATION
DESCRIPTION OF UNITS
Surflclal deposits Bedrock
f.'.' 1 Sand 13 Limestone and
E3 Sand and gravel dolomite
E~3 Clay and till
WATER TABLE
CONTACT
BEDROCK SURFACE
1 WELL
WA78 WASTE SITE—Location and number
-460
•420
.380
Figure 19.—Geologic section F-F', in Detroit, tlichigan.
-------
w
480
440
Datum Is sea level
0
MILE
Vertical scale greatly
exaggerated
EXPLANATION
DESCRPTION OF UNITS
Surflctal deposits Bedrock
440
1 KILOMETER
Qsand B LllSe2.tole an<1
n-m dolomite
tiiSand and gravel
ESciay and till
--- WATER TABLE
- CONTACT
- BEDROCK SURFACE
1 WELL
WA69 WASTE-StTE — Location and number
Figure 20.--Geologic section G-G1, in Detroit, Michigan.
-------
CD
South
H
FEET
620-1
580-
WA15
WA28
North
Trenton Channel H<
Detroit River. FEET
Datum Is aea level
1 MILE
1 KILOMETER
Vertical scale greatly
exaggerated
460
EXPLANATION
DESCRIPTION OF UNITS
Surllclal deposlta Bedrock
EH] Sand
CZ3 Clay and till
Limestone and
dolomite
WATER TABLE
CONTACT
BEDROCK SURFACE
1 WELL
WA29 WASTE-SITE—Location and number
Figure 21.~Geologic section H-H', near Wyandotte, Michigan.
-------
w
VO
480
Datum la sea level
2 MILES
2 KILOMETERS
Vertical scale greatly
exaggerated
EXPLANATION
DESCRIPTION OF UNITS
Surflclal deposits Bedrock
I•'- • I Sand KiV'J Sandstone
t-~-~l Clay and till ^^ Limestone and
dolomite
WATER TABLE
CONTACT
BEDROCK SURFACE
1 WELL
WA4 WASTE-SITE—Location and number
520
•480
Figure 22.—Geologic section I-I1, near Flat Rock, Michigan,
-------
td
620-
480
Datum Is sea level
1 2 MILES
2 KILOMETERS
Vertical scale greatly
exaggerated
EXPLANATION
DESCRIPTION OF UNITS
Surflclal deposits Bedrock
tn,,i Sand E] Sandstone
ED Clay and till 1=3 Limestone and
dolomite
WATER TABLE
CONTACT
BEDROCK SURFACE
1 WELL
MO5 WASTE-SITE—Location and number
480
Figure 23.—Geologic section J-J1, south of Rockwood, Michigan.
-------
Power
SKfgg. Canal
480
440-
400
480
—440
8 KILOMETERS
Vertical scale greatly
•xagoerated
EXPLANATION
DESCRIPTION OF UNITS
Surficlal deposiU Bedrock
FO Sand {33 Sandstone
S3 Sand and gr*v«l
E3 Clay and till
WATER TABLE
CONTACT
BEDROCK SURFACE
i. WELL
CH12 WASTE SITE—Location and number
•400
Figure 24.--Geologic section K-K', in Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan.
-------
w
I
West
L
FEET
820-1
780-
740-
700-
660-
620-
580-
460-
420-
380-
Sugar Island
CH6
East
L'
FEET
r-820
-780
h-740
—700
— 66O
— 620
600- :3£&::-&:£:V&-
-540
-520
-460
-420
Datum Is sea level
2 MILES
2 KILOMETERS
Vertical scale greatly
exaggerated
EXPLANATION
DESCRIPTION OF UNITS
Surtlclal deposits Bedrock
L_J Sand t'-'-l Sandstone
E3 Sand and gravel
E3 Clay and till
WATER TABLE
CONTACT
BEDROCK SURFACE
1 WELL
CH10 WASTE SITE—Location and number
•380
Figure 25.—Geologic section L-L1, near Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan.
-------
APPENDIX C: SEISMIC PROFILES
42°55'-
42°35' -
82°30'
82°25'
LAKE
HURON
Black River
MICHIGAN
Belle River
MARINE CIT
Fawn Island
Pine River
ICORUNNA
-Stag Island
-Start of line 7
"Start of line 12
,End of line 12
3COURTRIGHT
-End of line 20
CANADA
St. Clair River
OMBBA
PORT LAMBTON
A A'
EXPLANATION
LINE OF SEISMIC
PROFILE
Start of line 20
10500 20,000 FEET
i I
0 2000 4000 METERS
Base from National Oceanic and Atmospnenc Administration
National Ocean Survey map
Figure 26.—Location of USGS seismic profiles in the St. Clair River
C-l
-------
82°37'30"
42°37'30"-
422230" -
EXPLANATION
LINE OF SEISMIC PROFILE
40,000 FEET
Base from U.S. Geological Survey 124,000 quadrangles
Figure 27.—Location of USGS seismic profiles on Lake St. Clair.
C-2
-------
83°10'
42°16' —
42°04'—
82058'
Start of line 22
River Rouge
Ecorse
River
MICHIGAN
A Lake
'St. Clair
EXPLANATION
LINE OF SEISMIC PROFILE
10,900 20,000 FEET
2000 4000 METERS
Base from Natbnal Oceanic and Atmosphere Administration
National Ocean Survey map
Figure 28.—Location of USGS seismic profiles on the Detroit River.
C-3
-------
SOUND TRAVEL TIME, IN MILLISECONDS
-------
SOUND TRAVEL TIME, IN MILLISECONDS
SOUND TRAVEL TIME, IN MILLISECONDS
-------
Water-sediment interface
Bedrock surface
Bedrock surface
Water surface
Bedrock surface
Vertical scale greatly exaggerated
400
800
1200 METERS
Figure 31.--USGS line 12 A-A1, St. Clair River.
C-6
-------
SOUND TRAVEL TIME, IN MILLISECONDS
SOUND TRAVEL TIME, IN MILLISECONDS
ocnouiocnotnocno
ooiooiooiouiocno
-------
SOUND TRAVEL TIME, IN MILLISECONDS
SOUND TRAVEL TIME. IN MILLISECONDS
ocnooiowowowo
-------
SOUND TRAVEL TIME, IN MILLISECONDS
SOUND TRAVEL TIME, IN MILLISECONDS
-------
SOUND TRAVEL TIME, IN MILLISECONDS
-------
SOUND TRAVEL TIME, IN MILLISECONDS
-------
SOUND TRAVEL TIME, IN MILLISECONDS
-------
SOUND TRAVEL TIME, IN MILLISECONDS
-------
SOUND TRAVEL TIME. IN MILLISECONDS
ui^-ucouro ro-t-t
ocnpotovt otnocno
-------
SOUND TRAVEL TIME, IN MILLISECONDS
-------
SOUND TRAVEL TIME, IN MILLISECONDS
-------
Water-sediment interface
Water surface
A'
s»--'-' -T •i'i'- .:;;
Vertical scale greatly exaggerated
400
800
1200 METERS
Figure 42.—USGS line 23 A-A', Detroit Elver.
C-17
-------
APPENDIX D: TABLES OF DATA
Table 7.—Selected data for wells installed by the U.S. Geological Survey
[in., inches; ft, feet]
Geologic characterization
Well
number
Gl
Ground
water Well Depth,
discharge diameter total/screen
Location area (in.) (ft)
7N 17E 35BDD 1 2 34/27-31
Depth
(ft)
0-6
6-27
Sand,
Clay,
Description
gray, silty;
gray, silty.
damp
includes
black shale clast; damp
G2
6N 17B 15BDD 2 4 112/107-111
27-30
30-34
0-5
5-35
Sand,
Clay,
Fill
Clay,
gravel; wet
gray, silty;
brown, silt
damp
y, trace
G3 6N 17E 21CCB
2 50/41-45
G4 5N 17E 7ADD
G5 4N 17E 7DCD
G6 4N 17E 30AAC 3
2 65/52-63
48/44-48
24/19-24
sand; includes rock clast
35-100 Clay, gray, silty; includes
black shale clast; damp
100-107 Clay, gray, silty; damp
107-108 Round black shale fragments
with coarse grain sand
108-112 Black shale
0-12 Sand, brown-gray; dry
12-21 Clay, gray, silty; damp
21-22 Sand, gray, silty; damp
22-41 Clay, gray, silty; damp
41-44 Sand, gray, silty; damp
45-50 Clay, gray, silty; damp
0-21 Clay, brown, silty, small
shale clast; dry
21-65 Clay, gray, silty; damp
0-10 Clay, brown, silty; dry
0-48 Clay, gray, silty; damp
0-1 Clay, brown, silty; dry
1-7 Clay, brown, silty; damp
7-9 Organic material; clay; damp
9-24 Sand, gray, fine; clay; wet
D-l
-------
Table 7.—Selected data for wells installed by the U.S. Geological
Survey—Cont inued
well
number
Location
Ground
water Hell Depth,
discharge diameter total/screen
area (in.) (ft)
Geologic characterization
Depth
(ft)
Description
G7 3N 16E 14DDC
4a
52/43-52 0-2.5 Topsoil; gravel
2.5-6 Sand, brown-tan; clay; dry
6-16 Clay, brown-green, silty;
trace gravel, fine; damp
16-49 Clay, gray, silty; trace
gravel, fine; damp
49-52 No record
G8 3N 16E 9BCA 4a
28/21-28 0-2 Topsoil
2-17 Clay, gray, silty; trace
gravel, fine
17-26 Clay, gray; trace gravel
26-28 Clay, gray
G9 2N 16E 9BCA 4b
33/20-24 0-1 Topsoil
1-5 Sand, yellow, fine
5-26 Sand, gray, fine-medium;
trace gravel
26-28 Sand, gray, clayey
28-33 Clay, gray
G10 3N 15E 23ADA 4b
Gil 3N 15E 17AAC
G12 3N 14E 23DA
52/43-52 0-.5 Topsoil
.5-3.5 Fill, clay, rocks, brick
3.5-9 Clay, brown-gray, silty; dry
9-13 Clay, brown, silty; damp
13-49 Clay, gray, silty; trace
gravel, fine; damp
49-52 No record
48/38-48 0-.5 Topsoil
.5-9 Clay, brown; dry
9-48 Clay, gray; wet
42/35-42 0-1.5 Topsoil
1.5-5 Clay, brown, sandy-silty;
trace gravel; damp
5-6 Clay, gray, sandy
6-28 Clay, brown-gray, silty;
damp
28-39 Clay, gray; wet
39-42 No record
D-2
-------
Table 7.—Selected data for wells installed by the U.S. Geological
Survey—Cont inued
Geologic characterization
Ground
water Well Depth,
Well discharge diameter total/screen
number Location area (in.) (ft)
G13 2N 14E 5DB 5 2 33/23-33
G14 2N 14E 29AC 6 2 49/45-49
G15 IN 13E 14BAA 7a 2 49/45-49
G16 IS 13E 22DD 7a 2 48/44-48
Depth
(ft)
0-2.5
2.5-6
6-9
9-29.5
29.5-33
0-5
5-49
0-4
4-12
12-22
22-49
0-2
2-12
Description
Topsoil
Clay, brown; dry
Clay, brown-gray; damp
Clay, gray; wet
Sand, tan-gray, fine,
clayey; dry
Sand
Clay, gray, silty; trace
gravel; wet
Sand, tan, silty; fill; clay
Clay, brown, silty; trace
gravel
Clay, gray, silty; damp
Clay, gray; wet
Topsoil
Clay, brown; trace gravel.
G17
2S 12E 1AAD
7b
G18
33 HE 5ADA
Cine; dry
12-48 Clay, gray; trace gravel,
fine; slightly damp
30.5/15.5- 0-8.5 Fill, dirt, sand, clay,
gravel, metal, bricks;
damp
8.5-12 Fill; wet
12-30 Sand, clayey; gravel; wet
47/33-47 0-7 Topsoil, fill
7-12 Clay, brown, silty; dry
12-17 Clay, brown, silty; damp
17-43 Clay, gray, silty; trace
gravel, fine; damp
43-47 No record
G19 3S HE 9CDA 9
2 50/41-50
0-3 Fill, dirt, brick
3-7 Clay, dark gray; dirt; dry
7-14 Clay, brown-tan, silty; damp
14-18 Clay, brown, silty; wet
18-50 Clay, dull gray, silty;
trace gravel; wet
D-3
-------
Table 7.—Selected data for wells installed by the U.S. Geological
Survey—Cont inued
Geologic characterization
Well
number Location
G20 5S 10E 1A
Ground
water Well Depth,
discharge diameter total/screen
area (in.) (ft)
11 2 27/ —
(open hole
19.5-27)
Depth
(ft)
0-2
2-4
4-11
Description
Topsoil
Clay, brown, silty; dry
Clay, brown, silty; gravel.
G21
53 10E 12DC
11
G22
47N 1W 3 IBB
12
G23
47N 1W 11BA
13
fine; dry
11-19.5 Clay, gray, silty; trace
gravel; dry
19.5-22 Clay, gravel, dry
22-27 Limestone
33.5/26-30 0-13 Clay, brown, silty; dry
(open hole 13-15 Clay, light gray, silty;
trace gravel, fine medium;
dry
15-25 Clay, dark gray, silty;
trace gravel,small-
medium; dry
25-26 Clay, dark gray, silty;
gravel, fine; wet
26-28 Clay, gray; gravel; wet
28-33.5 Limestone
44/40-44 0-1 Topsoil
1-2 Sand, tan
2-36 Clay, red-brown
36-40 Clay, red-brown; trace
gravel
40-44 Sand, tan, very fine; clay,
red-brown
21/17-21 0-3 Leather waste; dry
3-7 Leather waste; wet
7-11 Sand, red-brown, very fine,
silty; wet
11-15 Sand, gray-red, very fine,
silty; clay, light brown,
wet
15-21 Sand, tan, very fine, silty;
clay, light brown, wet
D-4
-------
Table 7.—Selected data for wells installed by the U.S. Geological
Survey—Cont inued
Geologic characterization
Well
number Location
G24 47N IB SOD
Ground
water
discharge
area
13
Hell
diameter
(in.)
4
Depth,
total/screen
(ft)
53/49-53
Depth
(ft)
0-1.5
1.5-2.5
2.5-42
Description
Topsoil, trace gravel
Topsoil; sand; gravel
Clay, brown; trace sand,
G25
45N 2B 19AA
14
22/17-21
fine
42-48 Clay, brown; sand, tan,
fine; trace gravel
48-53 Sand, tan, fine; clay, brown
0-.5 Topsoil
.5-2 Fill, dirt, clay, gravel
2-17 Clay, gray, silty
17-22 Sand, fine-coarse
D-5
-------
Table 8.—Concentrations of volatile hydrocarbons in ground water
discharging to the Upper Great Lakes connecting channels
[Analyses by the U.S. Geological Survey. Concentrations are in
ug/L (micrograms per liter). Values underlined are greater
than the detection limit. < means less than]
Location and well number
Compound
Benzene
Brorooform
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Chlorodibromome thane
Chloroethane
2-Chloroethylvinylether
Chloromethane
Chloroform
m-Oichlorobenzene
o-Dichlorobenzene
p-Dichlorobenzene
Dichlorobromome thane
Dichlorodifluoromethane
1/1-Dichloroethane
1 , 2-Oichloroethane
1 , 1-Dichloroethylene
1 , 2-( trans )Dichloroethylene
1 > 2-Dichloropropane
1 i 3-Dichloropropene
Ethyl benzene
1 , 2-Dibromoethylene
Methylbromide
Hethylene chloride
Styrene
1,1,2, 2-Tetrachloroethane
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
1,1, 1-Tr ichloroethane
1,1, 2-Tr ichloroethane
Tr ichloroethlyene
Tr ichlorof luoromethane
Vinyl Chloride
Xylenes
Gli/
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
G2
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
St
G3
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
. Clair River area
G4
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
G5
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
G6
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
G7
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
G8
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
Wells designated as "G" wells are those installed by the U.S. Geological Survey
D-6
-------
Table 8.—Concentrations of volatile hydrocarbons in ground
water discharging to the Upper Great Lakes
connecting channels—Continued
[Analyses by the U.S. Geological Survey. Concentrations are in
ug/L (micrograms per liter). Values underlined are greater
than the detection limit. < means less than]
Location and
Compound
Benzene
Biomoform
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Chlorodibromomethane
Chloroethane
2-Chloroethylvinylether
Chloromethane
Chloroform
m-Dichlorobenzene
o-Dichlorobenzene
p-Dichlorobenzene
Dichlorobromomethane
Dichlorodifluoromethane
1 , 1-Dichloroethane
1 , 2-Dichloroethane
1 , 1-Dichloroethylene
1, 2- ( trans )Dichloroethylene
1 , 2-Dichloropropane
1 , 3-Dichloropropene
Ethyl benzene
1 , 2-Dibromoethylene
Hethylbromide
Methylene chloride
Styrene
1,1,2, 2-Tet rachloroethane
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
1 , 1 , 1-Tr ichloroethane
1,1, 2-Tr ichloroethane
Trichloroethlyene
Tr ichlorof luororaethane
Vinyl Chloride
xylenes
Lake St
G9
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
G10
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
Gil
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
well number
. Clair area
Gll^/ G12
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
.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
G13
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
G14
3.1
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
G15
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
G15^
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
G16
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
Duplicate sample collected for quality assurance/quality control
D-7
-------
Table 8.—Concentrations of volatile hydrocarbons in ground
water discharging to the Upper Great Lakes
connecting channels—Continued
[Analyses by the U.S. Geological Survey. Concentrations are in
ug/L (micrograms per liter). Values underlined are greater
than the detection limit. < means less than]
Location
Compound
Benzene
Bromoform
Carbon Tetrachlor ide
Chlorobenzene
Chlorod i bromome thane
Chloroethane
2-Chloroethylvinylether
Chlorotnethane
Chloroform
m-Dichlorobenzene
o-Dichlorobenzene
p-Dichlorobenzene
Dichlorobromomethane
Dichlorodifluoromethane
1 , 1-Dichloroethane
1, 2-Dichloroethane
1 , 1-Dichloroethylene
1 , 2- ( trans JDichloroethylene
1 , 2-Dichloropropane
1 , 3-Dichloropropene
Ethyl benzene
1 , 2-Dibromoethylene
Methylbroraide
Methylene chloride
Styrene
1,1,2, 2-Tetrachloroethane
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
1,1, 1-Tr i Chloroethane
1,1, 2-Tr ichloroethane
Tr ichloroethlyene
Trichlorof laororaethane
Vinyl Chloride
Xylenes
and well number
Detroit River
G17
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
Pli/
270
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<2Q
<20
<20
<20
<20
410
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
J24
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
740
G18
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
G19
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
P2
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
5.9
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
area
G20
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
P3
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
P3i/
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
G21
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
1 Hells designated as "P" wells are private wells
2 Duplicate sample collected for quality assurance/quality control
D-8
-------
Table 8.—Concentrations of volatile hydrocarbons in ground
water discharging to the Upper Great Lakes
connecting channels—Continued
[Analyses by the U.S. Geological Survey. Concentrations are in
ug/L (micrograms per liter). Values underlined are greater
than the detection limit. < means less than]
Location and well number
Compound
Benzene
Bromoform
Carbon Tetrachlor ide
Chlorobenzene
Chlor od i bromome thane
Chloroethane
2-Chloroethy Iv inylethei
Chloromethane
Chloroform
m-Dichlorobenzene
o— Dichlorobenzene
p-Dichlorobenzene
Dichlorobromomethane
Dichlorodifluoromethane
1 , 1-Dichloroethane
1 , 2-Dichloroethane
1 , 1-Dichloroethylene
1 , 2- ( trans )Dichloroethylene
1, 2-Dichloropropane
1 , 3-Dichloropropene
Ethyl benzene
1 , 2-Dibromoethylene
Hethylbromide
Methylene chloride
Styrene
1,1,2, 2-Tetrachloroethane
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
1,1, 1-Tr ichloroethane
1,1, 2-Tr ichloroethane
Tr ichloroethlyene
Tr ichlorof luoromathane
Vinyl Chloride
Xylenes
St. Marys River area
G22
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
P4
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
G23
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
G24
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
PS
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
P6
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
G25
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
G25i/
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
<3.0
Duplicate sample collected for quality assurance/quality control
D-9
-------
Table 9.—Concentrations of base neutral, acid extractable, and
chlorinated neutral extractable compounds in ground water
discharging to the Upper Great Lakes connecting
channels
[Analyses by the U.S. Geological Survey. Concentrations are in
ug/L (micrograms per liter). Values underlined are greater
than the detection limit. < means less than]
Location and
Compound
Acenaphthene
Acenaph thy lane
Aldrin
Anthracene
Benzo (a) anthracene
Benzo (b) fluoranthene
Benzo (k) fluoranthene
Benzo (g,h,i) perylene
Benzo (a) pyrene
Bis (2-chloroethoxy) methane
Bis ( 2-chloroethyl ) ether
Bis (2— chloroisopropyl)
ether
Bis (2-ethyl hexyl)
phthalate
4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Chlordane
2-Chlorophenol
2-Chloronapthalene
4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether
4-Chloro-3-methylphenol
Chrysene
DDD
DDE
DDT
Dibenzo (a,h) anthracene
1 , 2-Dichlorobenzene
1 , 3-Dichlorobenzene
1 , 4-Dichlorobenzene
2 , 4-Dichlorophenol
Dieldrin
Diethyl phthalate
2 , 4-Dimethylphenol
Dimethyl phthalate
Di-n-butyl phthalate
4 , 6-Dini tro-2-methylphenol
2,4-Dinitrophenol
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
well number
St. Clair River area
G:
Li/
<5.0
<5.0
<
.01
<5.0
<5.0
<10.0
<10
.0
<10.0
<10.0
<5.0
<5.0
<5.0
80.0
<5
<5
<
<5
<5
<5
<30
-------
Table 9.—Concentrations of base neutral, acid extractable. and
chlorinated neutral extractable compounds in ground water
discharging to the Upper Great Lakes connecting
channels—Cont inued
[Analyses by the U.S. Geological Survey. Concentrations are in
pg/L (micrograms per liter). Values underlined are greater
than the detection limit. < means less than]
Location and
Compound
2,6-Dinitrotoluene
Di-n-octylphthalate
Endosulfan
Endrin
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Gross polychlorinated
biphenyls
Gross polychlorinated
naphthalenes
Heptachlor
Heptachlor epoxide
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Hexachloroe thane
Indeno (1,2,3-cd) pyrene
Isophorone
Lindane
Methoxychlor
Mirex
Naphthalene
Nitrobenzene
2-Nitrophenol
4-Nitrophenol
n-Nitrosodimethylamine
n-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine
n-Nitrosodiphenylamine
Octachlorostyrene
Pentachlorophenol
Perthane
Phenanthrene
Phenol
Pyrene
Toxaphene
1,2, 4-Tr ichlorobenzene
2,4, 6-Tr ichlor ophenol
St. Clair
Gl
<5.
<10.
<.
<.
<5.
<5.
<.
<.
<.
<.
0
<5.
<5.
<5.
<10.
<5.
<.
<.
<.
<5.
<5.
<5.
<30.
<5.
<5.
-------
Table 9.—Concentrations of base neutral, acid extractable, and
chlorinated neutral extractable compounds in ground water
discharging to the Upper Great Lakes connecting
channels—Cont inued
[Analyses by the U.S. Geological Survey. Concentrations are in
ug/L (micrograms per liter). Values underlined are greater
than the detection limit. < means less than]
Location and
Compound
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Aldrin
Anthracene
Benzo (a) anthracene
Benzo (b) fluoranthene
Benzo (k) fluoranthene
Benzo (g,h,i) perylene
Benzo (a) pyrene
Bis (2-chloroethoxy) methane
Bis (2-chloroethyl) ether
Bis (2-chloroisopropyl)
ether
Bis (2-ethyl hexyl)
phthalate
4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Chlordane
2-Chlorophenol
2-Chloronapthalene
4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether
4-Chloro-3-methylphenol
Chrysene
DDD
DDE
DDT
Dibenzo (a,h) anthracene
1, 2-Dichlorobenzene
1 , 3-Dichlorobenzene
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
2 , 4-Di chlorophenol
Dieldrin
Diethyl phthalate
2 , 4-Dimethylphenol
Dimethyl phthalate
Di-n-butyl phthalate
4,6-Dinitro-2-methylphenol
2,4-Dinitrophenol
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
well number
Lake St. Clair area
G9
<5.0
<5.0
<.01
<5.0
<5.0
<10.0
<10.0
<10.0
<10.0
<5.0
<5.0
<5.0
100
<5.0
9.0
<.l
<5.0
<5.0
<5.0
<30.0
<10.0
<.010
<.010
.080
<10.0
<5.0
<5.0
<5.0
<5.0
<.010
<5.0
<5.0
<5.0
<5.0
<30.0
<20.0
<5.0
G10
<5.0
<5.0
<.01
<5.0
<5.0
<10.0
<10.0
<10.0
<10.0
<5.0
<5.0
<5.0
<5.0
<5.0
<5.0
<.l
<5.0
<5.0
<5.0
<30.0
<10.0
<.010
<.010
<.010
<10.0
<5.0
<5.0
<5.0
<5.0
<.010
<5.0
<5.0
<5.0
<5.0
<30.0
<20.0
<5.0
Gil
<5.0
<5.0
•e.050
<5.0
<5.0
<10.0
<10.0
<10.0
<10.0
<5.0
<5.0
<5.0
170
<5.0
25.0
<.S
<5.0
<5.0
<5.0
<30.0
<10.0
<.050
<.050
.41
<10.0
<5.0
<5.0
<5.0
<5.0
<.050
<5.0
<5.0
<5.0
<5.0
<30.0
<20.0
<5.0
.uV
<5.0
<5.0
<.OSO
<5.0
<5.0
<10.0
<10.0
<10.0
<10.0
<5.0
-------
Table 9.—Concentrations of base neutral, acid extractable, and
chlorinated neutral extractable compounds in ground water
discharging to the Upper Great Lakes connecting
channels—Cont inued
[Analyses by the U.S. Geological Survey. Concentrations are in
ug/L (micrograms per liter). Values underlined are greater
than the detection limit. < means less than]
Location and
Compound
2 , 6-Din i trotoluene
Di-n-octylphthalate
Endosulfan
Endrin
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Gross polychlorinated
biphenyls
Gross polychlorinated
naphthalenes
Heptachlor
Heptachlor epoxide
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclopentad iene
Hexachloroe thane
Indeno (1,2,3-cd) pyrene
Isophorone
Lindane
Methoxychlor
Hirex
Naphthalene
Nitrobenzene
2-Nitrophenol
4-Nitrophenol
n-Nitrosodimethylamine
n-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine
n-Nitzosodiphenylamine
Octachlorostyrene
Pentachlorophenol
Perthane
Phenanthrene
Phenol
Pyrene
Toxaphene
1,2, 4-Tr ichlorobenzene
2,4, 6-Tr ichlorophenol
well number
Lake St. Clair area
G9
<5.0
<10.0
<.010
•c.010
<5.0
<5.0
<.l
<.10
<.010
<.010
0
<5 .0
<5.0
<5.0
<10.0
-------
Table 9.—Concentrations of base neutral, acid extractable, and
chlorinated neutral extractable compounds in ground water
discharging to the Upper Great Lakes connecting
channels—Cont inued
[Analyses by the U.S. Geological Survey. Concentrations are in
ug/L (micrograras per liter). Values underlined are greater
than the detection limit. < means less than]
Location and
Compound
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Aldrin
Anthracene
Benzo (a) anthracene
Benzo (b) fluoranthene
Benzo (k) fluoranthene
Benzo (g,h,i) perylene
Benzo (a) pyrene
Bis (2-chloroethoxy) methane
Bis ( 2-chloroethyl ) ether
Bis (2-chloroisopropyl)
ether
Bis (2-ethyl hexyl)
phthalate
4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Chlordane
2-Chlorophenol
2-Chloronapthalene
4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether
4-Chloro-3-methylphenol
Chrysene
DDD
DDE
DDT
Dibenzo (a,h) anthracene
1 , 2-Dichlorobenzene
1, 3-Dichlorobenzene
1 , 4-Dichlorobenzene
2 , 4-Dichlorophenol
Dieldrin
Diethyl phthalate
2 , 4-Dimethylphenol
Dimethyl phthalate
Di-n-butyl phthalate
4 , 6-Dini tro-2-methy Iphenol
2,4-Dinitrophenol
2 , 4-Din i trotoluene
Lake St. Clair area continued
615
<5.0
<5.0
<.050
<5.0
<5.0
<10.0
<10.0
<10.0
<10.0
<5.0
<5.0
<5.0
75.0
<5.0
<5.0
<.5
<5.0
<5.0
<5.0
<30.0
<10.0
<.050
<.050
.20
<10.0
<5.0
<5.0
<5.0
<5.0
<.050
<5.0
<5.0
<5.0
<5.0
<30.0
<20.0
<5.0
G15I/
<5.0
<5.0
<.050
<5.0
<5.0
<10.0
<10.0
<10.0
<10.0
<5.0
<5.0
<5.0
46
<5.0
<5.0
<.5
<5.0
<5.0
<5.0
<30.0
<10.0
<.050
<.050
.20
<10.0
<5.0
<5.0
<5.0
<5.0
<.050
<5.0
<5.0
<5.0
<5.0
<30.0
<20.0
<5.0
G152/
RPD
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
48
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
G16
<5
<5
<
<5
<5
-------
Table 9.—Concentrations of base neutral, acid extractable. and
chlorinated neutral extractable compounds in ground water
discharging to the Upper Great Lakes connecting
channels—Cont inued
[Analyses by the U.S. Geological Survey. Concentrations are in
ug/L (micrograms per liter). Values underlined are greater
than the detection limit. < means less than]
Location and
Compound
2 , 6-Dini trotoluene
Di-n-octylphthalate
Endosulfan
Endrin
Pluoranthene
Fluorene
Gross polychlor inated
biphenyls
Gross polychlor inated
naphthalenes
Heptachlor
Heptachlor epoxide
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Hexachloroethane
Indeno (1,2,3-cd) pyrene
Isophorone
Lindane
Methoxychlor
Hirex
Naphthalene
Nitrobenzene
2-Nitrophenol
4-Nitrophenol
n-Nitrosodimethylamine
n-Nitrosodi-n-propy lamina
n-Nitrosodiphenylaaine
Octachlorostyrene
Pentachlorophenol
Perthane
Phenanthrene
Phenol
Pyrene
Toxaphene
1,2, 4-Tr ichlorobenzene
2,4, 6-Tr ichlorophenol
Lake St
CIS
<5.0
<10.0
<.050
<.050
<5.0
<5.0
<.5
<.50
<.050
<.050
0
<5.0
<5.0
<5.0
<10.0
<5.0
<.050
<.05
<.05
<5.0
<5.0
<5.0
<30.0
<5.0
<5.0
<5.0
0
<30.0
<.5
<5.0
<5.0
<5.0
<5
<5.0
<20.0
well number
. Clair area continued
G
<5
<10
<
<
<5
<5
<
<
<
0
<5
<5
<5
<10
<5
<
<
<
isi/
.0
.0
.050
.050
.0
.0
.5
.50
.07
.050
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.050
.05
.05
<5.0
<5
<5
<30
<5
<5
<5
0
<30
<
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<20
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.5
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
RPD
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
G16
<5
<10
<
<
<5
<5
<
<
<
<
0
<5
<5
<5
<10
<5
<
.0
.0
.050
.050
.0
.0
.5
.50
.050
.050
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.050
G17
<5.0
<10.0
<.010
<.010
6.0
<5.0
<.l
<.10
<.010
<.010
0
<5.0
<5.0
<5.0
<10.0
<5.0
<.010
Detroit River area
PI
<5.
<10.
<.
<.
<5.
9^
<.
<.
I/
0
0
010
010
0
0
1
10
^021
<.
0
<5.
<5.
<5.
<10.
<5.
<.
010
0
0
0
0
0
010
<-05 <.01 <.01
<
<5
<5
<5
<30
<5
<5
<5
0
<30
<
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<20
.05
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.5
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
<.01
<5.0
<5.0
<5.0
<30.0
<5.0
<5.0
<5.0
0
<30.0
<.l
n.o
<5.0
9.0
<1
<5.0
<20.0
<„
250
<5.
<5.
<30.
<5.
<5.
<5.
0
<30.
<.
13.
<5.
<5.
<1
<5.
<20.
01
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
G18
<5.0
<10.0
<.010
<.010
<5.0
<5.0
<.l
<.10
<.010
<.010
0
<5.0
<5.0
<5.0
<10.0
<5.0
<.010
<.01
<.01
<5.0
<5.0
<5.0
<30.0
<5.0
<5.0
<5.0
0
<30.0
<.l
<5.0
<5.0
<5.0
<2
<5.0
<20.0
G19
<5.0
<10.0
<.010
<.010
<5.0
<5.0
<.l
<.10
<.010
<.010
0
<5.0
<5.0
<5.0
<10.0
<5.0
<.010
<.01
<-01
<5.0
<5.0
<5.0
<30.0
<5.0
<5.0
<5.0
0
<30.0
<.l
<5.0
<5.0
<5.0
<1
<5.0
<20.0
2 Duplicate sample collected for quality assurance/quality control
RPD (relative percent difference) is the difference between the two sample values, divided by the
mean of the values, multiplied by 100. RPD is not calculated if one of the values is reported as
, less than (<).
Wells designated as "P" wells are private wells
D-15
-------
Table 9.—Concentrations of base neutral, acid extractable. and
chlorinated neutral extractable compounds in ground water
discharging to the Upper Great Lakes connecting
channels—Cent inued
[Analyses by the U.S. Geological Survey. Concentrations are in
ug/L (micrograms per liter). Values underlined are greater
than the detection limit. < means less than]
Location and
Compound
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Aldrin
Anthracene
Benzo (a) anthracene
Benzo (b) fluoranthene
Benzo (k) fluoranthene
Benzo (g,h,i) perylene
Benzo ( a ) pyrene
Bis (2-chloroethoxy) methane
Bis (2-chloroethyl) ether
Bis (2-chloroisopropyl)
ether
Bis (2-ethyl hexyl)
phthalate
4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Chlordane
2-Chlorophenol
2-Chloronapthalene
4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether
4-Chloro-3-methylphenol
Chrysene
DDD
DDE
DDT
Dibenzo (a,h) anthracene
1 , 2-Dichlorobenzene
1 , 3-Dichlorobenzene
1 , 4-Dichlorobenzene
2 , 4-Dichlorophenol
Dieldrin
Diethyl phthalate
2 , 4-Dimethylphenol
Dimethyl phthalate
Di-n-butyl phthalate
4,6-Dinitro-2-methylphenol
2 , 4-Dini trophenol
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
well number
Detroit River area continued
P2
<5.0
<5.0
<1.0
11.0
17.0
26.0
20.0
23.0
30.0
<5.0
<5.0
<5.0
150
<5.0
<5.0
<.l
<5.0
<5.0
<5.0
<30.0
15.0
<.010
<.010
<.010
16.0
<5.0
<5.0
<5.0
<5.0
<.010
<5.0
48.0
<5.0
<5.0
<30.0
<20.0
<5.0
G20
<5.0
<5.0
<.010
<5.0
<5.0
<10.0
<10.0
<10.0
<10.0
<5.0
<5.0
<5.0
76.0
<5.0
20.0
<.l
<5.0
<5.0
<5.0
<30.0
<10.0
<.010
<.010
<.010
<10.0
<5.0
<5.0
<5.0
<5.0
<.010
<5.0
<5.0
<5.0
<5.0
<30.0
<20.0
<5.0
P3
<5
<5
<
<5
<5
<10
<10
<10
<10
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<
<5
<5
-------
Table 9.—Concentrations of base neutral, acid extractable, and
chlorinated neutral extractable compounds in ground water
discharging to the Upper Great Lakes connecting
channe1s—Continued
[Analyses by the U.S. Geological Survey. Concentrations are in
ug/L (micrograms per liter). Values underlined are greater
than the detection limit. < means less than]
Location and well number
Compound
Detroit River area continued
P2
2 , 6-Dini trotoluene
Di-n-octylphthalate
Bndosulfan
Bndrin
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Gross polychlorinated
bipbenyls
Gross polychlorinated
naphthalenes
Heptachlor
Heptachlor epoxide
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexacblor obutad i ene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Hexachloroethane
Indeno (1,2,3-cd) pyrene
Isophorone
Lindane
Hethoxychlor
Mirex
Naphthalene
Nitrobenzene
2-Nitrophenol
4-Nitrophenol
n-Ni t rosod imethylamine
n-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine
n-Nitrosodiphenylamine
Octachlorostyrene
Pentachlorophenol
Perthane
Phenanthrene
Phenol
Pyrene
Toxaphene
1,2, 4-Tr ichlorobenzene
2,4, 6-Tr ichlor ophenol
<5
<10
<
21
10
<
<
<
<
0
<5
<5
<5
21
<5
<
<
<
.0
.0
.010
.021
.0
.0
.1
.10
.010
.010
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.010
.01
.01
5^0
<5
<5
<30
<5
<5
<5
-------
Table 9.—Concentrations of base neutral, acid extractable. and
chlorinated neutral extractable compounds in ground water
discharging to the Upper Great Lakes connecting
channels—Cont inued
[Analyses by the U.S. Geological Survey. Concentrations are in
ug/L (tnicrograms per liter). Values underlined are greater
than the detection limit. < means less than]
Location and well number
Compound
St. Marys
G23
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Aldrin
Anthracene
Benzo (a) anthracene
Benzo (b) fluoranthene
Benzo (k) fluoranthene
Benzo (g,h,i) perylene
Benzo (a) pyrene
Bis (2-chloroethoxy) methane
Bis (2-chloroethyl) ether
Bis (2-chloroisopropyl)
ether
Bis (2-ethyl hexyl)
phthalate
4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Chlordane
2-Chlorophenol
2-Chloronapthalene
4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether
4-Chloro-3-methylphenol
Chrysene
DDD
DDE
DDT
Dibenzo (a,h) anthracene
1 , 2-Dichlorobenzene
1 , 3-Dichlorobenzene
1 , 4-Dichlorobenzene
2 , 4-Dichlorophenol
Dieldrin
Diethyl phthalate
2 , 4-Dimethylphenol
Dimethyl phthalate
Di-n-butyl phthalate
4,6-Dinitro-2-methylphenol
2,4-Dinitrophenol
2 , 4-Di n i trotoluene
<5
<5
<
<5
<5
<10
<10
<10
<10
<5
<5
<5
95
<5
5_
<
<5
<5
<5
<30
<10
<
<
<
<10
<5
<5
<5
<5
<
<5
-------
Table 9.—Concentrations of base neutral, acid extractable. and
chlorinated neutral extractable compounds in ground water
discharging to the Upper Great Lakes connecting
channels—Cont inued
[Analyses by the U.S. Geological Survey. Concentrations are in
ug/L (micrograms per liter). Values underlined are greater
than the detection limit. < means less than]
Location and well number
Compound
St. Marys
G23
2,6-Dinitrotoluene
Di-n-octylphthalate
Endosulfan
Endrin
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Gross polychlorinated
biphenyls
Gross polychlorinated
naphthalenes
Heptachlor
Heptachlor epoxide
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Hexachloroethane
Indeno (1,2,3-cd) pyrene
Isophorone
Lindane
Methoxychlor
Mirex
Naphthalene
Nitrobenzene
2-Nitrophenol
4-Nitrophenol
n-Nitrosodimethylamine
n-Nitrosodi-n-propy lamina
n-Nitrosodiphenylamine
Octachlorostyrene
Pentachlorophenol
Perthane
Phenanthrene
Phenol
Pyrene
Toxaphene
1,2, 4-Tr ichlorobenzene
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
<5
<10
<
<
<5
<5
<
<
<
<
0
<5
<5
<5
<10
<5
<
<
<
<5
<5
<5
<30
<5
<5
<5
<5
<30
<5
-------
Table 10.—Concentrations of trace metals and other dissolved substances
in ground water discharging to the Upper Great Lakes
connecting channels
[Analyses by the U.S. Geological Survey. — means
no analysis made. < means less than]
Location and well number
Compound
Antimony, total (|ig/L)
Arsenic, total (|ig/L)
Barium, dissolved (ug/L)
Beryllium, dissolved (ug/L)
Cadmium, total (ug/L)
Chromium, total (ng/L)
Cobalt, total (ug/L)
Copper, total (|ig/L)
Iron, total (mg/L)
Lead, total (|ig/L)
Mercury, total (|ig/L)
Nickel, total (ug/L)
Selenium, total (ug/L)
Zinc, total (mg/L)
Carbon, total organic (mg/L)
Chloride (mg/L)
Cyanide, total (mg/L)
Dissolved solids (mg/L)
Oil-grease, total (mg/L)
Nitrogen, total (mg/L)
pH (units)
Phenols, total (|ig/L)
Phosphorus, total (mg/L)
Specific conductance
(US/cm)
Temperature (°C)
St. Clair River area
Gl±/
1
4
240
<.5
<1
59
20
38
48
1,600
.40
52
<1
70
28
79
<.010
436
6
1.2
10.1
5
.440
1/838
14.0
G2
<1
15
300
<1
<1
21
10
36
40
23
.50
56
<1
2.5
16
210
<-010
629
5
1.7
8.4
4
.570
1,100
11.5
G3
<1
12
1,400
4
<1
<1
200
380
200
6,300
<.10
400
<1
390
17
44
<-010
246
3
2.1
10.9
4
.041
1/427
13.5
G4
9
9
60
<1
<1
18
2
11
9.7
1,500
.50
6
<1
83
30
51
•e.010
285
7
.20
11.2
6
.070
720
16.0
G5
1
<1
51
<1
<1
17
<1
2
1.2
36
<.10
<1
<1
9.9
3.6
250
<.010
1,560
4
1.8
11.0
4
.021
2,380
14.5
G6
1
2
300
<1
<1
26
30
160
79
100
<
200
<1
9
18
31
<
810
5
2
8
2
1,190
17
.10
.3
.010
.3
.1
.120
.0
2 wells designated as "G" wells are those installed by the U.S. Geological Survey
Laboratory value
D-20
-------
Table 10.—Concentrations of trace metals and other dissolved substances
in ground water discharging to the Upper Great Lakes
connecting channels — Cont inued
[Analyses by the U.S. Geological Survey. — means
no analysis made. < means less than]
Location and well number
Compound
Antimony, total (|ig/L)
Arsenic, total (ug/L)
Barium, dissolved (ng/L)
Beryllium, dissolved (|ig/L)
Cadmium, total (|ig/I>)
Chromium, total (|ig/L)
Cobalt, total (ng/L)
Copper, total (ng/L)
Iron, total (rag/L)
Lead, total (|ig/L)
Mercury, total (|ig/L)
Nickel, total (ng/L)
Selenium, total (ng/L)
Zinc, total (mg/L)
Carbon, total organic (mg/L)
Chloride (mg/L)
Cyanide, total (mg/L)
Dissolved solids (mg/L)
Oil-grease, total (mg/L)
Nitrogen, total (mg/L)
pH (units)
Phenols, total (ng/L)
Phosphorus, total (mg/L)
Specific conductance
(US/cm)
Temperature (°C)
St. Clair
River area
continued
G7
13
13
96 2,
<1.0
<1
13
3
8
9.5
400 1,
.1
11 1,
<1
26
30
56
<.010
218
8
2.S
10.9
4
.16
454
12.5
G8
1
4
100
21
<1
11
26
730
500
700
.
300
<1
78
190
11
<.
145
18
—
10.
4
.
322
12.
G9
3
2
78
<.5
<1
41
1
10
5.2
71
3 .10
11
<1
9.6
15
14
010 <.010
230
10
1.3
3 8.5
5
10 .008
411
5 14.5
Lake St. Clair area
G10
2
2
110
<1
<1
12
<1
11
5.3
500
.20
6
<1
21
19
280
•e.010
1,020
6
3.0
11.4
4
.330
2,130
14.0
Gil
5
8
79
2
<1
<1
<1
10
3.7
110
.20
2
<1
21
5.0
530
<.010
1,530
10
.6
7.5
3
.090
2,610
12.0
G12
1
<1
4,000
22
<1
<1
1
3
580
34
.30
<1
<1
74
220
5.6
<.010
144
19
43
10.7
7
.110
397
18.5
G13
5
8
1,000
<.5
<1
36
10
19
15
200
.30
29
<1
16
19
32
<.010
3,920
6
.20
i/9.3
8
1.10
5,790
14.0
Laboratory value
D-21
-------
Table 10. — Concentrations of trace metals and other dissolved substances
in ground water discharging to the Upper Great Lakes
connecting channels — Cont inued
[Analyses by the U.S. Geological Survey. — means
no analysis made. < means less than]
Location and well number
Compound
Lake St. Clair area
continued
Detroit River area
Antimony, total (|ig/L)
Arsenic, total (|ig/L)
Barium, dissolved (|tg/L)
Beryllium, dissolved (ng/L)
Cadmium, total (ng/L)
Chromium, total (ng/L)
Cobalt, total (|ig/L)
Copper, total (|ig/L)
Iron, total (mg/L)
Lead, total (|tg/L)
Mercury, total (ng/L)
Nickel, total (|ig/L)
Selenium, total (|ig/L)
Zinc, total (mg/L)
G14
5
2
1,700
260
<1
<1
60
350
180
500
.50
500
<1
24
G15
1
7
210
14
1
25
9
23
15
110
.20
19
<1
6.4
G16
5
11
680
4
4
12
60
250
130
600
.20
400
<1
34
G17
—
<1
2,400
13
<1
<1
50
2,500
570
4,700
2.2
900
<1
26
Pli/
—
58
2,000
<10
40
120
160
660
960
2,500
55
880
<1
12
G18
<1
3
110
<1
1
10
<1
16
3.4
400
.40
7
<1
16
G19
5
13
99
<1
<1
15
<1
27
9.4
4,200
.20
2
<1
170
Carbon, total organic (mg/L)
Chloride (mg/L)
Cyanide, total (mg/L)
Dissolved solids (mg/L)
Oil-grease, total (mg/L)
Nitrogen, total (mg/L)
pH (units)
Phenols, total ((ig/L)
Phosphorus, total (mg/L)
Specific conductance
(US/cm)
Temperature (°C)
68
66
<.010
395
3
10
8.8
4
1.10
686
13.0
7.5
140
<.010
423
3
1.0
8.6
2
.480
776
10.5
14
130
<.010
523
2
1.5
10.6
1
.710
942
13.0
330
930
<.010
2,110
4
58
7.0
4
3.80
3,620
13.5
1,000 9.3
93 220
<.010 <.010
2,840
4
3.4
6.6 9.0
580 3
2.2 .070
3,110 3,070
14.0 15.0
29
190
<
2,210
13
10
4
-/2.590
14
.010
.90
.1
.830
.5
2 Wells designated as "P" wells are private wells
Laboratory value
D-22
-------
Table 10.—Concentrations of trace metals and other dissolved substances
in ground
[Analyses
no
Compound
Antimony, total ()ig/L)
Arsenic, total (|ig/L)
Barium, dissolved (|ig/L)
Beryllium, dissolved (|ig/L)
Cadmium, total (|ig/L)
Chromium, total (|ig/L)
Cobalt, total (ng/L)
Copper, total (|ig/L)
Iron, total (mg/L)
Lead, total (ng/L)
Mercury, total (ng/L)
Nickel, total (ng/L)
Selenium, total (|ig/L)
Zinc, total (rog/L)
water discharging to
connecting
channel s-
the Upper Great
— Cont inued
Lakes
by the U.S. Geological Survey. — means
analysis made. < means less than]
P2
4
84
130
1
<1
3
6
530
42
800
1.
1,500
<1
•
Carbon, total organic (mg/L) 86
Chloride (mg/L)
Cyanide, total (mg/L)
Dissolved solids (mg/L)
Oil-grease, total (mg/L)
Nitrogen, total (mg/L)
pH (units)
Phenols, total (|ig/L)
Phosphorus, total (mg/L)
Specific conductance
(liS/cm)
Temperature (°C)
64,000
<.
114,000
13
.
11.
250
.
130,000
16.
G20
i
2
82
<.
<1
30
<1
12
3
600
7
6
<1
39 12
14
32
010 <.
1,390
10
80 50
5 7.
2
830
1,760
0 12.
Location and well
Detroit River area
P3
<1
<1
16
5 <1
5
30
<1
18
.12
<5
70 .20
4
<1
.18
3.2
18
010 <.010
2,380 2
3
1.7
4 7.5
2
600 .021
2,430 1/2
0 14.0
number
continued
P31/
<1
<1
15
<1
<1
26
<1
6
.39
8
.30
3
<1
.63
3.4
23
<.010
,240
4
1.7
1/7.9
2
.041
,400
14.0
P3l/
RPD
0
0
6
0
—
14
0
100
106
—
40
29
0
192
6
24
0
6
29
0
52
0
65
1
0
G21
1
4
150
3
7
29
10
36
25
300
<1.0
42
<1
9.6
15
27
<.010
2,420
10
2.9
7.4
2
.700
2,440
14.5
2 Duplicate sample collected for quality assurance/quality control
RPD (relative percent difference) is the difference between the two sample values, divided by
the mean of the values, multiplied by 100. RPD is not calculated if one of the values is
3 reported as less than (<).
Laboratory value
D-23
-------
Table 10.—Concentrations of trace metals and other dissolved substances
in ground water discharging to the Upper Great Lakes
connecting
channels—
-Continued
[Analyses by the U.S. Geological Survey. — means
no analysis made. < means less than]
Location and well number
Compound
G22
Antimony, total (|ig/L) <1
Arsenic, total (|ig/L) 1
Barium, dissolved (|ig/L) 32
Beryllium, dissolved (|ig/L) <.5
Cadmium, total (ng/L) <1
Chromium, total (ng/L) 23
Cobalt, total (|ig/L) <1
Copper, total (|tg/L) <1
Iron, total (mg/L) <.01
Lead, total (ng/L) <5
Mercury, total (wg/L) .30
Nickel, total (ng/L) <1
Selenium, total (|ig/L) <1
Zinc, total (mg/L) .24
Carbon, total organic (mg/L) .7
Chloride (mg/L) .70
Cyanide, total (mg/L) <.010
Dissolved solids (mg/L) 101
Oil-grease, total (mg/L) 1
Nitrogen, total (mg/L) .20
pH (units) 8.3
Phenols, total (ug/L) 2
Phosphorus, total (mg/L) .021
Specific conductance
(liS/cm) 154
Temperature (°C) 8.0
P4 G23
1
2 1
150 120
<.5 <
<1 <1
<1 320
<1 4
1 19
.04 6
<5 49
.10
2 11
<1 <1
.081 8
.6 56
160
<.010 <
443 385
2 5
.40
8.3 8
2 7
.100
700 639
11.0 9
St. Marys River area
G24 P5 P6
<1 <1 <1
211
66 37 120
.5 <.5 <.5 <.5
<1 <1 <1
42 15 <1
70 <1 <1
331
.6 .28 .16 .08
12 <5 12
.1 .30 .30 .30
<1 <1 <1
<1 <1 <1
.4 2 .009 .099
4.6 2.4 2.2
.8 7.3 15 140
.010 <.010 <.010 <.010
290 263 487
<1 <1 1
.4 1.0 .40 .40
.2 8.4 7.9 8.2
622
.43 .070 .041 .120
474 410 876
.5 9.0 12.0 12.5
G25
<1
1
21
<.5
5
25
70
2
3.5
<5
.10
<1
<1
.22
1.3
.70
<-010
156
<1
1.2
7.5
3
.021
252
8.0
D-24
-------
APPENDIX E: IDENTIFICATION OF WASTE SITES
Information on the location and nature of active and inactive waste sites
within 12 miles of the connecting channels was obtained from published
reports, from the USEPA, and from the Michigan Department of Natural
Resources. The majority of sites are landfills, hazardous-waste disposal
sites, and regulated-storage sites. Other sites include transportation
spills, leaking underground storage tanks, contaminated wells, and underground
injection wells. The sites are listed by county in tables 11 to 17 and are
shown on plates 6-10. Sixty-one sites listed on USEPA1s CERCLIS
(Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation Liability Information
System) list and 33 sites listed in a report by Gorman and Akeley (1978) have
not been located or ranked because of insufficient information.
Underground injection wells are present in the St. Clair, Lake St. Clair,
and Detroit River study areas. The wells are identified in table 11, but are
not ranked because a suitable ranking system could not be developed. The
USEPA is required by the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974 to regulate
injection-well activities to protect aquifers that are or may be used to
supply public water systems. Injection wells are divided into the following
five classes: (1) wells used to inject hazardous wastes or industrial and
municipal waste waters below the lowest usable aquifer (Class I); (2) wells
used to dispose of fluids associated with oil and gas production or to inject
fluids for enhanced oil recovery or liquid hydrocarbon storage (Class II);
(3) wells that inject fluids for mineral extraction, that is, solution mining
(Class III); (4) hazardous,waste wells used to inject wastes into or above
usable aquifers (Class IV) ; and (5) wells not belonging in the other four
classes, generally used to inject nonhazardous fluids into or above usable
aquifers (Class V). All wells have been tested for mechanical integrity. Any
well that failed the test was shut down.
There are seven Class I wells in the St. Clair, Lake St. Clair, and
Detroit River study areas. Two of the wells were used to inject a
nonhazardous mixed-brine solution to depths greater than 4,600 ft; they are
temporarily abandoned. Three of the other five Class I wells dispose of
hazardous wastes at depths greater than 3,700 ft. The wastes contain
chloride, ammonia, and phenols. The remaining two Class I wells were used to
dispose of hazardous wastes at depths greater than 3,800 ft; neither of the
wells are currently operating.
Permits have been issued for more than 63 Class II wells, 7 of which are
not currently in operation. Class II wells are divided into three types.
Type D wells are saltwater disposal wells. The 29 type D wells inject
saltwater at depths of 890 ft to greater than 4,000 ft. Type H wells are
hydrocarbon storage wells. These wells provide access to rock formations that
are used to store natural gas, refined petroleum products, or liquified
petroleum gas. At least 28 type H wells use storage areas usually 2,500 ft or
more deep. Type R wells, which are enhanced-oil-recovery wells, are all
within the St. Clair River study area. Of the six type R wells with permits,
Use of Class IV wells was banned in 1985.
E-l
-------
five are currently operating. These wells are finished in the Detroit River
Group and Niagaran Dolomite.
Thirteen wells have Class III permits for solution mining. Water is
pumped into a salt bed, the salt dissolves, and the water is pumped out.
Eight of the wells, which produce salt from Salina Group evaporites, operate
in the St. Clair River area. The other five wells are not in operation.
There are no Class IV wells in the UGLCC study area. Of the 200 Class V
wells, 103 are in Chippewa County, 17 are in the St. Clair Area, 14 are in the
Lake St. Clair area and 66 are in the Detroit River area. None are considered
potential contamination sources by the USEPA.
E-2
-------
Waste-Site Tables
Table 11.—Underground injection sites in Macomb, Monroe,
Oakland. St. Glair, and Wayne Counties
[Source: Christiane Saada and Art Moretta, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, written conraun., 1988. Site numbers indicate county; MA is Macomb
County, MO is Monroe County, OA is Oakland County, SC is St. Clair County and
WA is Wayne County.]
Site
number
Site name
Well name
Well1
permit
number
Well'
class
Well3 Well4
type status
MA-U1 Consumers Power Company
HA-U2 Consumers Power Company
MA-U3 Consumers Power Company
MA-U4 Tenexco Incorporated
MA-US Preston Oil Company
MO-U1 Sun Exploration and Production Co.
MO-U2 Freedom Oil Company
MO-U3 Grey Petroleum Incorporated
MO-U4 Dixon Exploration Incorporated
OA-U1 Energy Acquisition Corporation
OA-U2 Lakeville Gas Association
SC-U1 Consumers Power Company
SC-U2 Consumers Power Company
SC-U3 Consumers Power Company
SC-U4 Consumers Power Company
SC-U5 Consumers Power Company
SC-U6 Consumers Power Company
SC-U7 Consumers Power Company
SC-U8 Consumers Power Company
SC-U9 Consumers Power Company
SC-U10 Sappington Crude Oil
SC-U11 Sappington Crude Oil
SC-U12 Consumers Power Company
SC-U13 Sun Exploration and Production Co.
SC-U14 Sun Exploration and Production Co.
SC-U15 Sun Exploration and Production Co.
SC-U16 Sun Exploration and Production Co.
SC-U17 Vans Tank Truck Service
SC-U18 Vans Tank Truck Service
SC-U19 Wiser Oil Company
SC-U20 Consumers Power Company
SC-U21 Consumers Power Company
SC-U22 Consumers Power Company
SC-U23 Consumers Power Company
SC-U24 Consumers Power Company
SC-U25 Eastside Producing Company
SC-U26 Diamond Crystal
Dean Raster 'l-l
Lenox
Ray
Inwood 1-10
Marcereau Etal '6-36
F Roe 3
H Hontry 4
Halberstadt Al
Woodbury 1-19
Peters 1-21
Leonard BDW-1
FB-7005 ('2-CC)
FB-7007 ('IOCS)
FB-7008 (32-C5)
FB-7012 (32-C3)
FB-7010 (32-C4)
FB-7006 (J3-CC)
FB-7004 ('l-CC)
FB-7009 (31-C4)
FB-7011 (31-C3)
Ferdinand Fordt 1
Brown 3
Four Corners
Melvin Thueme 32
Columbus 3 Unit 9-2
Waltos and St Clair Rd
Columbus 3 Unit
Marian and Aileen Stov
Arthur Fordt 31
Harvey Schultz 3
Consumers Power CO-M
BD-139
Smith "E" 01
2-7 BDW
1-7 BDW
Mull ins and Gaedcke 2
1
MIS24061
MIS2H19
MIS2H27
MIS36401
MIS0992D0001
MIS422S
MIS8569
MISBD69
MIS37S98
MIS1252D0001
MIS30697
MIS28537
MIS28550
MIS28S88
MIS28598
MIS28S99
MIS28600
MIS28601
MIS28S49
MIS28S38
MIS23720
MIS2S704
MIS2H9
MIS23388
MIS27655
MIS1472D0008
MIS2R20
MIS2S311
MIS24868
MIS1472D0004
MIS2H43
MISBD139
MIS1472D0005
MIS1471I0002
MIS1471I0001
MIS24190
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
I
I
II
III
D
H
H
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
D
D
H
D
R
D
D
R
R
D
H
D
D
I
I
D
G
AC
AC
AC
TA
TA
AC
PA
AC
AC
UC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
TA
AC
AC
AC
AC
TA
TA
TA
AC
Well permit number is the number of the approved permit issued by U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency.
Class I wells are industrial and municipal wells; Class II wells are associated with oil and gas
production and liquid hydrocarbon storage; Class III wells are process wells used in solution
mining.
Type H (Class I) wells are industrial hazardous waste disposal wells; Type I (Class I) wells are
nonhazardous waste disposal wells; Type D (Class II) wells are salt water disposal wells; Type H
(Class II) wells are hydrocarbon storage wells; Type R (Class II) wells are enhanced oil recovery
wells; Type G (Class III) wells are solution mining wells.
Well status AC refers to an active well; TA is a temporarily abandoned well; UC is a well under
construction; and PA is a plugged and abandoned well.
E-3
-------
Table 11.—Underground injection sites in Macomb. Monroe,
Oakland, St. Glair, and Wayne Counties—Continued
Site
number
Site name
Well name
Well
permit Well Well Well
number Class type status
SC-U27 Diamond Crystal
SC-U28 Diamond Crystal
SC-U29 Diamond Crystal
SC-U30 Diamond Crystal
SC-U31 Diamond Crystal
SC-U32 Diamond Crystal
SC-U33 Diamond Crystal
SC-U34 Lanphars Incorporated
SC-U35 Leob Oil Company
SC-U36 Leob, Herman L.
SC-U37 McClure Oil Company
SC-U38 Michigan Consolidated Gas Company
SC-U39 Michigan Consolidated Gas Company
SC-U40 Michigan Consolidated Gas Company
SC-U41 Morton Salt Company
SC-U42 Consumers Power Company
SC-U43 Consumers Power Company
SC-U44 Consumers Power Company
SC-U45 Consumers Power Company
SC-U46 Consumers Power Company
SC-U47 American Oil Company
SC-U48 Amoco Production Company
SC-U49 Sun Exploration and Production Co.
SC-U50 ANR Pipeline Company
SC-U51 ANR Pipeline Company
WA-U1 BASF Wyandotte
WA-U2 Consumers Power Company
WA-U3 Marathon/Buckeye Petro Company
WA-U4 Mobil Oil Corporation
WA-U5 Phillips Petroleum Company
WA-U6 Sun Exploration and Production Co.
WA-U7 Sun Exploration and Production Co.
WA-U8 Sun Exploration and Production Co.
WA-U9 Sun Exploration and Production Co.
WA-U10 Detroit Coke Corporation
WA-U11 Detroit Coke Corporation
WA-U12 Detroit Coke Corporation
WA-U13 Rouge Steel Company
WA-U14 Rouge Steel Company
WA-U15 Pennwalt Chemical Co.-Wyandotte
WA-U16 Marathon Oil Company
WA-U17 Pennwalt Corporation
WA-U18 Bell and Gault Drilling
WA-U19 Marathon Oil Company
WA-U20 Pennwalt Corporation
WA-U21 Pennwalt Corporation
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Broadbridge-Meli 1
Bel in
Berk Henderson 2
Naeyaert 1
Belle River Mills
Columbus West
Columbus
Morton Salt Manistee
Hessen
Ira
Puttygut
Swan Creek
Lyszczyk 01
American Oil Co-St C
St. Clair LPG Termina
Kaufman 1
Harry and J. Tosch
etal 51
Beebe 'l
BASF Wyandotte Corp.
Northville
Brine Disp Well 'l
Mobile Trenton LPG St
Phillips-Wyandotte L
Sun Inkster 4
Sun Inkster 3
Sun Inkster 2
Sun Inkster Junction
WDW-1
WDW-2
WDW-3
Ford Disposal Well 31
Ford Disposal Well '2
Wyandotte 15
Woodhaven (LPG site)
Pennwalt 4
Sun Inkster 5
Woodhaven 31
Wyandotte 36
Wyandotte '4
MIS25729
MIS2R22
MIS22406
MIS27703
MIS2H6
MIS2H2
HIS2H3
MIS024737851
MIS2H13
MIS2H15
MIS2H26
MIS2H33
MIS21S30
MIS2H44
MIS2H37
MIS23412
MIS24646
MIS24876
MIS2H36
MIS2H22
MISBD146
MIS2H40
MIS2H38
MISBD124
MISBD96
MISBD95
MIS2H45
MIS1631H0003
MIS1631H0004
MIS1631H0005
MIS1631HP&AL
MIS1631H0002
MIS47736882
MIS2H41
MIS049736882
MISBD155
MIS27160
MIS48736882
MIS49736882
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
III
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
I
I
I
I
I
III
II
III
II
II
III
III
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
R
R
D
R
H
H
H
G
H
H
H
H
D
H
H
D
D
D
H
H
D
H
H
D
D
D
H
H
H
H
H
H
G
H
G
D
D
G
G
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
PA
AC
AC
AC
AC
PA
AC
AC
AC
AC
PA
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
PA
TA
PA
AC
PA
AC
AC
PA
PA
E-A
-------
Table 12.—Confirmed or possible ground-water-contamination sites in
Macomb County
[The use of industry or firm names in this report is for identification or
location purposes only and does not impute responsibility for any present or
potential effects on the natural resources. The first two segments of the
site location designate township and range, the third segment designates
section, and the letters A through D designate successively smaller 1/4
subdivision of the section; see Site-Location System. Dash indicates data not
presently available. References to footnotes are numbered and are given in
parenthesis following each site name.]
Site
number
Site name
Site location
Nature of site
MAI Malow Landfill
(1,2,3)
3N 12E 30AB, 30AC,
30BA, and 30BD
Landfill.
Demolition debris
MA2 Carolee Street area
(1,2,4)
MA3 Ramona Park Landfill
(1,2,3,4)
MA4 Residential wells
Foss Road (1,2,4)
MA5 Residential wells
Cedargrove Road
(1,2,4)
3N 12E 22CB
3N 12E 33CA
3N 13E 10ACC
3N 12E 20ABB
Residential water
wells having high
chloride levels
Landfill. Mixed
industrial and
municipal waste.
Phenols
Tetrachloroethylene
Dichloroethane
Frank Belobraidich, Michigan Department of Natural Resources, written comm.,
1985, 1986, and 1987.
2
Steve Cunningham, Michigan Department of Natural Resources, written comm.,
1985, 1986, and 1987.
3
Tom Work, Michigan Department of Natural Resources, written comm., 1986
4
Michigan Sites of Environmental Contamination-Priority List, Act 307,
Michigan Department of Natural Resources 1986 and 1987.
E-5
-------
Table 12.—Confirmed or possible ground-water-contamination sites in
Macomb County—Cont inued
Site
number
Site name
Site location
Nature of site
MA6
MA7
MAS
MA9
MA10
MA11
MAI 2
MAI 3
New Haven Foundary
(1,2,4)
Tuff Kote Dinol Inc.
(1,2,4)
Clinton River Road
Disposal area
(1,2,3,4)
Uamlin Road Landfill
(1,2,3,4,5)
Koch Road Dump
(1,2,4)
Utica Site Cardinal
Land Corp. (1,2,3,4)
G and H Landfill
(1,2,3,4,5,6,7)
Red Run Drain Landfill
(1,2,3,4,5)
4N 14E 33BDCA
IN 12E 12CC
2N 13E 19AD
3N 12E 19CDA, 19CDD,
19DC, 19DDC, and
30AB
2N 12E 32BDD
3N 12E 33DC
3N 12E 19AA
2N 12E 25A
Steel foundry
Light industry
Landfill. Mixed
industrial and
municipal waste.
Phenols
Landfill. Mixed
industrial and
municipal waste.
Methylene chloride,
dichloropropane,
chlorobenzene
Landfill.
Landfill. Light
industrial waste
Landfill. Phenols,
phthalates,
benzene, chromium,
cyanide
Landfill. Heavy
metals, toluene,
benzene
Gorman and Akeley, 1978
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1986a.
Ken West lake, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, written commun., 1987.
E-6
-------
Table 12.—Confirmed or possible ground-water-contamination sites in
Macotnb County—Continued
Site
number
Site name
Site location
Nature of site
MAI4 Ryan and 23 Mile Road 3N 12E 19AA
(1,2,4)
MA15 South Macomb Disposal 3N 13E 15BD
Authority 9 and 9A
(1,2,3,4,5,6,7)
MA16 St. Lawrence Cemetery— 3N 12E 33CBD
sawmill (1,2,3,5)
MAI7 Metro Beach Incinerator 2N 14E 22
(1)
MA18 American Legion
(1,2,3,5)
MAI 9
MA20
MA21
MA22
Dean Bros. 27 Mile
Lenox Township
(1,2,3)
3N 12E 33DA
4N 14E 35BDAB
Dean Bros. 25 Mile 3N 14E 10AD
Chesterfield Township
(1,2,3,5)
A and A Lenox Township
(1)
Detroit Sportsman
Congress
(A and A Landfill)
(1,2,3,5)
4N 14E 24
3N 12E 19CA
Residential water
wells. Toluene,
xylene, vinylidene
chloride
chlorinated
hydrocarbons
Landfill.
Household and
commercial waste.
Methylethyl ketone,
ethyl ether,
styrene
Landfill.
Household and
commercial waste
Incinerator.
General refuse
Landfill.
Household and
commercial waste,
demolition debris
Landfill. Mixed
industrial and
municipal waste
Landfill. Mixed
industrial and
municipal waste
Landfill (under
construction)
Landfill.
Commercial
and demolition
debris. Possible
liquid waste
disposal
E-7
-------
Table 12.—Confirmed or possible ground-water-contamination sites in
Macomb County—Cont inued
Site
number
Site name
Site location
Nature of site
MA23 Sugarbush
(1,2,4)
MA24 South Macomb Disposal
Authority Transfer
Station (1)
MA25 New Baltimore Sanitary
Landfill (1)
MA26-27 Ray Township Transfer
and Disposal Station
(1,3)
MA28
MA29
MA30
MA31
MA32
MA33
Richmond Township
Landfill (1,3,5)
Mt. Clemens Coatings
and Plastics (Ford
Vinyl and Paint,
Mt. Clemens) (2,4)
City of Warren, Refuse
Transfer Station (1)
Rosso Highway SAFB -
Avis Ford (1,3)
Grosse Points Clinton
Waste Reduction Plant
(old Dean site) (1)
Liquid Disposal
(1,2,4,6,7)
3N 14E 21DCCD
IN 13E 18BA
3N 14E 13BBBD
4N 13E 17A
and 17D
5N 14E 33ADA
2N 13E 2DC
IN 12E 24CAB
3N 14E 32
2N 13E 34DA and
34DB
3N 12E 30AAA
MA34
Standard Oil Gas
Station (1,2,4)
2N 13E 27AA
Landfill. Chromium
lead, nickel,
copper, zinc
General refuse
Landfill. General
refuse
Landfill.
Household and
commercial waste
Landfill.
Demolition debris
Automobile manu-
facturing, PCB,
phthalates, methyl
ethyl ketone,
t et ra-hydro furan
Landfill. Foundry
sand
Incinerator
Liquid waste
incinerator.
Phenols, PCB,
trichloroethylene,
perchlorethylene,
phthalates,
chloroform
Gas Station.
Benzene, toluene,
xylene
E-8
-------
Table 12.—Confirmed or possible ground-water-contamination sites in
Macomb County—Continued
Site
number
Site name
Site location
Nature of site
MA35
MA36
MA37
MA38
MA39
MAAO
Achem Products Inc. (8) IN 12E 28CDA
General Electric Co.
(8)
CMC Technical Center
(8)
OMI International Corp
Udylite Sel-Rex (8)
U.S. Army Tank
Automotive Command
(8)
U.S .Chemical Company
Inc. (8)
IN 12E 34DB and
34DC
IN 12E 8A, 8D,
and 9
IN 12E 34DBA
IN 12E 16ACC and
16BDD
IN 13E 7CCA
Industrial plant
Wastes stored in
containers; spent
halogenated and
nonhalogenated
solvents, electro-
plating sludges,
solutions with
cyanide
Wastes stored or
treated on site;
spent halogenated
and nonhalogenated
solvents, lead,
acetone, toluene
diisocyante
Wastes stored in
containers or
tanks; spent
halogenated and
nonhalogenated
solvents, chromium,
cyanide, lead
Wastes stored in
containers or
tanks; spent
halogenated and
nonhalogenated
solvents,
electroplating
sludges, cyanide,
Wastes stored in
containers or
tanks; spent
halogenated and
nonhalogenated
solvents
Richard Traub, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, written comm., 1986.
E-9
-------
Table 12.—Confirmed or possible ground-water-contamination sites in
Macomb County—Cont inued
Site
number
Site name
Site location
Nature of site
MA41 Selfridge ANG Base (8) 2N 14E 18BCA
MAAla Selfridge ANG Base
(2,4)
2N 14E
MA42 Safety Kleen Corporation 2N 13E 2ADB
(8)
MA43 M-97 Landfill (3)
MA44 Weil Sanitary
Landfill (3)
MA4S Hayes Road Site No. 8
(3,5)
MA46 Marsack and Son (3)
MA47 Fourteen Mile Road Site
(3)
MA48 Macomb Township Dump
(2)
2N 13E 10DAC
3N 14E 2
2N 12E 36A
IN 13E 3BB and 3BC
2N 13E 33D
3N 13E 14CD
Wastes stored in
containers or
tanks; spent
halogenated and
nonhalogenated
solvents, formic
acid, 1,1,1-
trichloroethane,
Landfills (3),
solvents, paint
wastes, petroleum
products. Fuel
spills (2), JP-4.
Fire training areas
(2), solvents,
paint wastes,
petroleum products
Wastes stored in
containers or
tanks; spent
halogenated and
nonhalogenated
solvents, lead
Landfill.
Demolition debris,
and stumps
Proposed landfill
never developed.
Removed from map
and ranking
Landfill. General
refuse
Landfill
Landfill. General
refuse, industrial
waste
Landfill
E-10
-------
Table 12.—Confirmed or possible ground-water-contamination sites in
Macomb County—Continued
Site
number
Site name
Site location
Nature of site
MA49 Mt. Clemens
(2)
MA50 South Macomb Disposal
(2)
MA51 Cardinal (Reitzloff)
(2)
MAS2 South Macomb Disposal
(2)
MA53 Detroit Fill
(2)
MA54 Blundt Dump - Uamtramck
or Highland Park (2)
MA55 Detroit Fill
(2)
MA56 South Macomb Disposal
(2)
MA57 Detroit fill
(2)
MA58 South Macomb
Disposal No. 5 (2)
MA59 Detroit Fill
(2)
MA60 Detroit Fill
(2)
MA61 Residential wells
Card Road (2)
2N 13E 12D
2N 13E 34CA
IN 13E 34CDB
IN 13E 3BA
IN 12E 4AC
IN 12E 6BD
2N 12E 33CCC
2N 12E 32DB and
32 DC
2N 12E 32BBA
2N 12E 23AAA
3N 12E 33D
3N 12E 30ADA
3N 13E 15DA
MA62 Henning Road Landfill 3N 14E 29CB
(2)
MA63 Shores Oil Co.
(2)
IN 13E 28CD
Landfill
Landfill
Landfill
Landfill
Landfill.
Incinerator ash
Landfill
Landfill.
Incinerator ash
Landfills (2)
Landfill.
Incinerator ash
Landfill
Landfill.
Incinerator ash
Landfill.
Incinerator ash
Residential water
well having low
concentration of
benzene
Landfill
Oil storage. Fuel
oil
E-ll
-------
Table 12.—Confirmed or possible ground-water-contamination sites in
Macomb County—Cont inued
Site
number
Site name
Site location
Nature of site
MA6A Fini Finish Products
(2)
MA65 GE Carboloy (2)
MA66 G and L Industries
(2)
MA67 Clark Gas Station
(2)
MA68 NI Industries/Mirrex
(2)
MA69 Clinton River (2)
IN 12E 29AA
IN 12E 34DC
3N 14E 30BD
IN 12E 5DA
2N 13E 14AA
Mt. Clemens to
mouth (2N 13E
and 2N 14E)
Plating, polishing.
Chrome, cyanide
Underground storage
tank. Acetone
Fiberboard
manufacture.
Phthalates, lead
Gas station
'Drum storage.
Paint products
River sediments.
Chrome, lead, oil,
grease
E-12
-------
Table 13.—Confirmed or possible ground-water-contamination sites in
Monroe County
[The use of industry or firm names in this report is for identification or
location purposes only and does not impute responsibility for any present or
potential effects on the natural resources. The first two segments of the
site location designate township and range, the third segment designates
section, and the letters A through D designate successively smaller 1/4
subdivisions of the section; see Site-Location System. References to
footnotes are numbered and are given in parameters following each site name.]
Site
number Site name Site location Nature of site
M01 Ash Township SS 9E 8DAB Landfill. Mixed
(1,2,3) industrial and
municipal waste
M02 Burt's Landfill SS IDE 6AA Landfill. Foundry
(1,2) sand
M03 Edward C. Levy Co. SS 9E SAB and Landfill. Solid
(1,2,3,4) SAC industrial waste
from steel mill
M04 Matlin Road SS 9E 8DBA and Landfill.
(Carleton) (1,2) 8DBC Demolition debris
MOS Wayne Disposal SS 10E 34AD Landfill. Inert
(Rockwood) (1,2) wastes; demolition
debris, foundry
sand
Frank Belobraidich, Michigan Department of Natural Resources, written coram.,
198S, 1986, and 1987.
2
Tom Work, Michigan Department of Natural Resources, written comm., 1986.
Gorman and Akeley, 1978
4
Michigan Sites of Environmental Contamination-Priority List, Act 307,
Michigan Department of Natural Resources 1986 and 1987.
E-13
-------
Table 13.—Confirmed or possible ground-water-contamination sites in
Monroe County—Cont inued
Site
number
Site name
Site location
Nature of site
M06 Brandon Road
Land Reclamation
(Proposed site only)
(1,2)
M07 Moo-Lee Co. (1,2,4,5)
5S 10E 3SBCAB
Proposed landfill,
never developed.
Removed from map
and ranking
Landfill. Inert
wastes; demolition
debris, foundry
sand and fly ash
Steve Cunningham, Michigan Department of Natural Resources, written comm.,
1985, 1986, and 1987.
E-14
-------
Table 14.—Confirmed or possible ground-water-contamination sites in
Oakland County
[The use of industry or firm names in this report is for identification or
location purposes only and does not impute responsibility for any present or
potential effects on the natural resources. The first two segments of the
site location designate township and range, the third segment designates
section, and the letters A through D designate successively smaller 1/4
subdivision of the section; see Site-Location System. References to footnotes
are numbered and are given in parameters following each site name.]
Site
number
Site name
Site location
Nature of site
OA1
OA2
OA3
OA4
OA5
Parker Chemical
Company (1)
IN HE 2BD
Reichhold Chemicals Inc. IN HE 27AC
(1)
Safety Kleen Corp. (1) IN HE 36BB
Operator unknown (2)
IN HE 12A
Southeast Oakland County IN HE 12CB
Incinerator Authority
(2)
Wastes stored in
containers or
tanks; spent
halogenated and
nonhalogenated
solvents, chromium,
corrosive wastes
Wastes stored in
containers or
tanks; spent
halogenated and
nonhalogenated
solvents, lead,
hydroxybenzene,
formaldehyde
Wastes stored in
containers; spent
halogenated and
nonhalogenated
solvents
Landfill
Landfill
Richard Traub, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, written comm., 1986.
2
Steve Cunningham, Michigan Department of Natural Resources, written comm.,
1985, 1986, 1987.
E-15
-------
Table 14.—Confirmed or possible ground-water-contamination sites in
Site
number
OA6
OA7
OA8
OA9
OA10
OA11
Oakland
Site name
Operator unknown (2)
City of Detroit (2)
Operator unknown (2)
City of Detroit (2)
City of Detroit (2)
Southeast Oakland Count]
County — Continued
Site location
IN HE 11DA
IN HE 13DB
IN HE 13ACCC
IN HE 25AAA
IN HE 32CA
/ IN HE 12CCC
Nature of site
Landfill
Landfill
Landfill
Landfill
Landfill
Landfill
Incinerator Authority
(2)
OA12 Howard Plating (2) IN HE 1AA
OA13 Ethyl Corporation (2) IN HE 33CD
Plating, polishing.
Cyanide, heavy
metals
Petroleum refining
E-16
-------
Table 15.—Confirmed or possible ground-water-contamination aites in
St. Glair County
[The use of industry or firm names in this report is for identification or
location purposes only and does not impute responsibility for any present or
potential effects on the natural resources. The first two segments of the
site location designate township and range, the third segment designates
section, and the letters A through D designate successively smaller 1/4
subdivision of the section; see Site-Location System. References to footnotes
are numbered and are given in parameters following each site name.]
Site
number
Site name
Site location
Nature of site
SCI
SC2
SC3
SC4
SC5
SC6
Belle River Berra
Project (Range Road
Property) (1,2,3)
4N 16E 12
Howard Disposal (1,2,3) 7N 17E 16CCD
Huron Development
(Marine City Sanitary
Landfill) (1,2,3)
Whitcomb Barrel Dump
(4,5)
Vlasic Foods Inc.
Sanitary Landfill
(1,2,3)
Blue Water
Construction (1,2,3)
4M 16C 28DDA,
28DCA, 28DDB,
28DCB
6N 16E 5DB
5N 16E 6ABC
7N 17E 16BBA
Landfills. Fly ash
disposal
Landfill.
Demolition debris
Landfill.
Household waste,
demolition debris,
foundry sand
Heavy manufacturing
wastes
Landfill. Pickling
process waste
Landfill.
Demolition debris
Frank Belobraidich, Michigan Department of Natural Resources, written comn.,
1985, 1986, and 1987.
2
Tom Work, Michigan Department of Natural Resources, written conm., 1986.
Gorman and Akeley, 1978.
4
Michigan Sites of Environmental Contamination-Priority List, Act 307,
Michigan Department of Natural Resources 1986 and 1987.
Steve Cunningham, Michigan Department of Natural Resources, written comn.,
1985, 1986, and 1987.
E-17
-------
Table 15.—Confirmed or possible ground-water-contamination sites in
St. Glair County—Continued
Site
number
Site name
Site location
Nature of site
SC7
SC8
SC9
SCI 2
SC13
SC14
SC15
SC16
Clay Township
Sanitary Landfill
(1,2,3)
2N 16E 4CCA
Norman Markel (1,2,3) 3N 16E 2DABC
B.F.I. Landfill (1,2) 5N 15E 27A
SC10 County Line Landfill 4N 15E 18DC
(1,2)
SC11 Winchester Disposal 6N 17E 17AC
area (1,4,5)
Hwy M-29 and 2N 16E 10CA
Michigan St. (1,4,5)
SC17
Grand Trunk Railroad
(1,4,5)
Sanitary Landfill
Area No. 1
(Smith Creek Landfill)
(1,2,3,4,5)
Wills Street
Dump site (1,4,5)
A and B Waste
Disposal (1,4,5)
John A. Biewer
Company (1,4,5)
6N 17E 17AB
6N 16E 32CAD
5N 17E 7AC
6N 17E 20DDDD
4N 16E IDA
Landfill.
Household and
commercial waste
Industrial waste,
demolition debris
Proposed landfill,
never developed.
Removed from map &
ranking
Landfill. Mixed
industrial and
municipal waste
Household and
heavy industrial
waste
Service station.
gasoline
Railroad pipeline.
Oil
Landfill. Mixed
industrial and
municipal waste.
Phenols
Landfill. Heavy
manufacturing
wastes
Landfill. Toluene,
xylene, trichloro-
ethane, ethyl
benzene, tetra-
chloroethylene
Wood preserving.
Chromium
E-18
-------
Table 15.—Confirmed or possible ground-water-contamination sites in
St. Glair County—Continued
Site
number
Site name
Site location
Nature of site
SCI 8
SC19
SC20
SC21
SC22
SC23
Hoover Chemical
Reeves Products
(1,4,5)
Akzo Chemie
America (6)
Eltra Corp.
Prestolite Wiring
(6)
Mueller Brass Co.
(6)
St. Clair Rubber Co.
Marysville (1,4,5)
Fort Gratiot
Sanitary Landfill
(2)
6N 17E 2ODD
5N 17E
6N 17E 21CAAA
6N 17E 9AB
5N 17E 6AA
7N 17E 16CDC
SC24 Total Oil Storage (4) 6N 17E 8CC
Paint products.
Methylene,
chloride, solvents
Wastes stored in
containers; methyl
hydrazine, methyl
isocyanate, 2-
propanone, toluene
Wastes stored in
containers;
halogenated and
nonhalogenated
solvents,
wastewater, lead,
chloroethene,
methyl ethyl ketone
Waste stored in
pile; lead. Wastes
treated in tanks;
cadmium, cyanide
solutions,
chromium,
halogenated
solvents
Plastic, rubber
manufacturing.
Landfill.
Household wastes,
demolition debris,
foundry sand, fly
ash
Oil storage
Richard Traub, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, written comm., 1986.
E-19
-------
Table 15.—Confirmed or possible ground-water-contamination sites in
St. Glair County—Continued
Site
number
Site name
Site location
Nature of site
SC25 General Technical
Coatings (4)
SC26 Harsens Island
Barrel Dump (4)
3N 16E 12CA
2N 16E 20BCC
Paint products
Landfill. Paint
products
E-20
-------
Table 16.—Confirmed or possible ground-water-contamination sites in
Wayne County
The use of industry or firm names in this report is for identification or
location purposes only and does not impute responsibility for any present or
potential effects on the natural resources. The first two segments of the
site location designate township and range, the third segment designates
section, and the letters A through D designate successively smaller 1/4
subdivisions of the section; see Site-Location System. Dash indicates data
not presently available. References to footnotes are numbered are are given
in parameters following each site name.]
Site
number
Site name
Site location
Nature of site
WAI
WA2
WA3
WA4
Ford Motor Company
Allen Park Clay Mine
(1,2,3,4)
Huron Quarry
Sanitary Landfill
(1,2,5,6)
Pennfill (1,2,5,6)
M and P Development Co.
(1,2,5,6)
2S 10E 25CD and 36BA
36 BA
4S 9E 36DB
3S 10E 34CD
AS 10E 30DBDB
Landfill. Fly ash,
foundry sand.
Barium, lead, tar
sludge from coking
operations,
emission control
sludge from steel
production
Landfill. Domestic
waste incinerator
ash
Industrial landfill
containing foundry
sand, brick,
calcium carbonate
sludge, concrete
slag
Landfill.
Municipal and light
industrial waste
Frank Belobraidich, Michigan Department of Natural Resources, written comm.,
1985, 1986, and 1987.
Tom Work, Michigan Department of Natural Resources, written comm., 1986.
Richard Traub, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, written comm., 1986.
David Slayton, Michigan Department of Natural Resources, written comm., 1986
and 1987.
E-21
-------
Table 16.—Confirmed or possible ground-water-contamination sites in
Wayne County—Continued
Site
number
Site name
Site location
Nature of site
WAS
WA6
WA7
WAS
WA9
WA10
WA11
WAI 2
Mclouth Steel Corp. (1,2) 4S 10E 36
Michigan Casting Center 4S 10E 33BC
(1,2)
Monsanto Co. (1,3,4)
Riverview Land (1,2)
Preserve
Sibley Quarry (1,2)
Thorton Landfill
(1,2,5,6)
4S HE 30C
4S 10E HA, 11B,
12B, and 12C
4S HE 7BB
AS 10E 4CB
Vulcan Mold and Iron Co. 4S HE 7CC
(1,2,5,6)
Ottawa Silica Co. (1,2) 5S 10E 15BD and 15AC
Slag disposal
Landfill. Foundry
sand
Wastes stored in
containers or
surface ponds;
corrosive and
reactive wastes,
arsenic
Landfill. Mixed
industrial and
commercial waste,
demolition debris,
fly ash, foundry
sand
Landfill. Inert
waste, fly-ash
disposal
Landfill.
Industrial waste.
Chromium, nickel
Landfill. Foundry
sand, benzene,
phenols, toluene,
and xylene
Landfill.
Household and
commercial waste
Michigan Sites of Environmental Contamination-Priority List, Act 307,
Michigan Department of Natural Resources 1986 and 1987.
Steve Cunningham, Michigan Department of Natural Resources, written conxn.,
1985, 1986, and 1987.
E-22
-------
Table 16.—Confirmed or possible ground~water-contamination sites in
Wayne County—Continued
Site
number
Site name
Site location
Nature of site
WA13 Lyon Development Co. (1) 4S 9E SC
WA14 Detroit River
Sediments (1,5,6)
WAI6 Dump near Wicks
Elementary School
(1,5,6)
WAI7 Peloquin Enterprises
Detroit (1,5,6)
WA18 Peloquin Enterprises
St. Aubin (1,5,6)
Detroit River
WA15 Federal Marine 4S HE 5C
Terminal Properties
(1,5,6)
3S 9E 8CA and 8BD
IS 12E 9CC
IS 12E 29CA
Proposed landfill
never developed.
Removed from map
and ranking
Mercury, lead, PCB,
arsenic, zinc,
nickel
Landfill. Mercury,
chlorinated
hydrocarbons,
phenols, organics
Landfill. Phenol,
cyanide, zinc,
iron, xylene,
cadmium
Oil storage and
waste processing
Waste hauling.
Heavy manufacturing
oils
WAI9 Chem-Met Services
(1,3,4,5,6)
WA20 Zug Island
Great Lake Steel
(1,5,6)
WA21 Norfolk and Western
Railroad (1,5,6)
WA22 Industrial Landfill
(Firestone) (1,5,6)
WA23 Mich. Con. Riverside
Park (1,5,6)
4S 10E 3DDDA
2S HE 35
2S HE 32BD
4S HE 5B
2S 12E 19BB
Waste-treatment
facility. Xylene,
toluene, asbestos,
chloride
Steel foundry.
Asbestos, oil
Wastes stored in
tanks; fuel oil
Landfill. PCB,
phenol
Coal gasification.
Petroleum and coal
products, benzene,
copper, xylene,
pyrene, zinc
E-23
-------
Table 16.—Confirmed or possible ground-water-contamination sites in
Wayne County—Continued
Site
number
WA24
WA25
Site name
National Airport Site
(1,5,6)
Cooper School Site
Site location
2S 9E 18CB
2S 9E 1CB
Nature of
Landfill
Landfill
site
WA26
WA27
(1,5,6)
Erving and Vivian 5S 10E 6AA
Brown Landfill (1,5,6)
Dynamite Park (1)
2S 9E 28DC
WA28 B.A.S.F. Wyandotte 3S 10E 21B
North works (1,3,5,6)
WA29 B.A.S.F. Wyandotte 3S HE 32C
South works (1,5,6)
WA30 Allied Chemical Corp. 2S HE 26CDC
Detroit Tar Plant (3)
WA31 Ashland Chemical Co. (3) IS 12E 21CADD
Landfill
Possible release of
waste water from a
now closed auto-
mobile dealership
Chemical company.
Styrene, phenols,
dichloroethane,
benzene, chloroform
Wastes stored in
containers; spent
halogenated and
nonhalogenated
solvents
Chemical company.
Chloroform, phenols
dichloroethane,
trichloroethane
Wastes stored in
containers (drums
etc); creosote-
production sludges,
creosole,
naphthalene
Wastes stored in
containers; spent
halogenated and
nonhalogenated
solvents
E-24
-------
Table 16.—Confirmed or possible ground-water-contamination sites in
Wayne County—Continued
Site
number
Site name
Site location
Nature of site
WA32 Chemical Recovery
Systems (3,4,5,6)
3S 9E 5ABB
UA33 Commercial Steel
Treating Corp. (3)
2S HE 3BDD
WA34 Dearborn Refining Co. 2S HE 17DDDD
(3,5,6)
WA35 Detrex Chemical
Industries, Inc.
(3)
WA36 Diversey Corp. (3)
IS HE 20ADA
and 20ADB
3S HE 21CBB
Wastes stored in
containers or
tanks; spent
halogenated and
nonhalogenated
solvents, acetone,
trichloroethylene,
1,1,1-trichloro-
ethane. Lagoon,
leaking organic
chemicals, priority
pollutants
Wastes treated on
site; metal-heat-
treating operation
sludges, cyanides
Wastes stored in
tanks; Electro-
plating and heat-
treating sludges,
cyanides, barium,
cadmium, chromium,
lead, silver
Wastes stored in
containers or
tanks; spent
halogenated
solvents
Wastes stored in
containers;
chromium,
dichloromethane,
methyl alcohol.
Wastes treated in
tanks; chromium
E-25
-------
Table 16.—Confirmed or possible ground-water-contamination sites in
Wayne County—Continued
Site
number
Site name
Site location
Nature of site
WA37
Edwards Oil Service
Inc. (3,4)
2S HE 28CA
WA38
Environmental Waste
Control Inc. (3,4)
2S 9E 25ACCB
WA39
General Electric Co.
(3)
AS HE 6DAA
WA40
General Oil Company
Inc. (3,5,6)
IS 10E 30ADD
WA41
CMC Cadillac
Clark Plant (3)
2S HE 14AAD
Stored or treated
in tanks; arsenic,
barium, cadmium,
chromium, lead,
mercury, selenium,
spent pickle liquor
from steel-finish-
ing operation
Wastes stored in
tanks or treated in
ponds or tanks:
spent pickle liquor
from steel-
finishing oper-
ation, electro-
plating sludges,
chromium, selenium,
arsenic, barium,
cadmium, mercury,
silver
Wastes stored in
containers or
tanks; spent
halogenated and
nonhalogenated
solvents, xylene,
1,1,1-trichloro-
ethane
Wastes stored or
treated in tanks;
spent halogenated
and nonhalogenated
solvents, spent
cyanide solutions,
petroleum refining
waste
Wastes stored in
containers;
chromium, lead
spent halogenated
and nonhalogenated
solvents
E-26
-------
Table 16.—Confirmed or possible ground-water-contamination sites in
Wayne County—Continued
Site
number
Site name
Site location
Nature of site
WA42 CMC Chevrolet
Detroit Assembly (3)
WA43 CMC Chevrolet
Detroit Forge (3)
IS 12E 31DB
IS 12E 29BCB
WA44 CMC Chevrolet Detroit IS 12E 30AAA
Gear and Axle (3)
WA45
CMC Detroit Diesel
Allison Division
Redford (3)
2S 10E 28CA, 28CB,
and 28DB
WA46
WA47
Huron Valley Steel
Corp. (3)
Inmont Corp. (3)
2S HE 34DBD
2S HE 3DC
Wastes stored in
containers or
treated in tanks;
electroplating
sludges, cyanides
Wastes stored in
containers;
electroplating
sludges, cyanides,
spent halogenated
solvents
Wastes stored in
containers or
treated and stored
in tanks; spent
halogenated
solvents,
electroplating
sludges, cyanides
Wastes stored in
containers or
treated and stored
in tanks; spent
halogenated and
nonhalogenated
solvents, spent
cyanide, plating
bath solutions,
Wastes stored in
tanks; emission
control sludge from
steel production
Wastes stored in
containers or
tanks; spent
nonhalogenated
solvents, lead,
ignitable waste
E-27
-------
Table 16.—Confirmed or possible ground-water-contamination sites in
Wayne County—Continued
Site
number
Site name
Site location
Nature of site
WA48 Jones Chemicals Inc. 4S HE 5BD
(3)
WA49 Edward C. Levy Co. 3S HE IOC
Plant No. 3 (3,4)
WA50 Edward C. Levy Co.
Plant No. 6 (3,5)
2S HE 29DBD
WA51 Edward C. Levy Co. 4S HE 5CCC
Trenton Plant (3,5)
WA52 Master Alloys Inc. (3) IS 12E 29ABCC
WA53 McKesson Chemical Co.
(3)
WA54 Mclouth Steel (3,4)
3S 10E 7CBB
4S HE 8BBC
and 7DDA
Wastes stored or
treated in tanks;
corrosive wastes
Wastes stored in
surface pond; spent
pickle liquor from
steel-finishing
operation
Wastes stored in
surface pond; spent
pickle liquor from
steel-finishing
operation
Wastes stored in
surface pond; spent
pickle liquor from
steel-finishing
operation
Wastes stored in
containers;
emission control
sludge from
secondary lead
melting
Wastes stored in
containers; spent
halogenated and
nonhalogenated
solvents
Wastes stored in
tanks; spent pickle
liquor from steel-
finishing oper-
ations. Wastes
stored in pile;
emission control
sludge from steel
production
E-28
-------
Table 16.—Confirmed or possible ground-water-contamination sites in
Wayne County—Continued
Site
number
Site name
Site location
Nature of site
WAS5 Michigan Chrome and
Chemical Co. (3)
WAS 6
Nelson Industrial
Services (3,4,5,6)
WAS 7
Perm wait Corporation
(3,5,6)
WAS8 Rouge Steel Co. (3)
IS 12E 22BDB
IS HE 30DAA
3S HE 32CCC
2S HE 28BBB
WA59 Safety Kleen Corp. (3) 3S 9E 21CBD
Wastes stored in
containers; spent
halogenated and
nonhalogenated
solvents. Wastes
stored or treated
in tanks; electro-
plating sludges and
bath solutions,
cyanides
Hazardous waste
facility. Wastes
stored and treated
on site; electro-
plating sludges and
bath solutions,
cyanides, ink
solvents, chromium,
lead
Wastes stored in
containers or
tanks;
dipropylamine,
1-propanamine,
phenol
Injection well
disposal
Wastes stored in
containers; spent
halogenated and
nonhalogenated
solvents
E-29
-------
Table 16.—Confirmed or possible ground-water-contamination sites in
Wayne County—Continued
Site
number
Site name
Site location
Nature of site
WA60 Waste Acid Service
Inc. (3,4)
IS 12E 21DB
WA61 MI Environmental
Services Co. (5,6)
WA62 Inkster Gasoline Leak
(5,6)
WA63 Intervale Lyndon LC
(5,6)
WA64 Plating Equipment Used,
Inc. (5,6)
WA65 Van Dusen Airport
Service (5,6)
4S 10E 31DB
2S 9E 30BB
IS HE 21DB
IS HE 16BB
3S 9E 13CD
WA66 Celanese Plastics IS 12E 19DB
Specialities Co. (5,6)
WA67 Carters Waste Oil
Reclamation Inc. (3)
WA68 CMC Detroit Diesel
Allison Romulus Plant
(3)
IS HE 12BCA
3S 9E 5C
Wastes stored or
treated in tanks;
spent pickle liquor
from steel-
finishing oper-
ations, arsenic,
barium, cadmium,
chromium, lead,
mercury, selenium,
silver
Oil solvent
recycle. PCB
Gas station.
Toluene, xylene
Heavy manufacturing
Plating, polishing.
Cyanide
Aircraft manufac-
turing. Cyanide,
jet fuel
Paint products,
xylene, toluene,
benzene
Recycled waste oils
petro chemicals
Wastes stored in
containers or
tanks; spent
halogenated and
nonhalogenated
solvents, dimethyl
sulfate
E-30
-------
Table 16.—Confirmed or possible ground-water-contamination sites in
Wayne County—Continued
Site
number
Site name
Site location
Nature of site
WA69 CMC Fisher Body
Fort Street (3)
2S HE 22DAC
WA70 Petro-Chem Processing
Inc. (3,4)
IS 12E 36DD
WA71 Chem-Central
Romulus (5,6)
WA72 Carters
Industrials (5,6)
WA73 Levy Co. King Road
Site (1,2)
3S 9E 29BB
2S HE 12BA
4S HE 7DC
WA74 Young Patriots Park (1,2) 4S 10E IDC
WA75 Berger-Gordon (6)
(Berger Corp.)
WA76 Huber Foundry (4)
WA77 M and H Service (6)
Station
WA78 Palmer and Brush
Streets (6)
WA79 Tronex Chemical
Corporation (6)
IS 12E 33AA
IS 12E 21
2S HE 8BA
IS 12E 31DA
IS HE 22AB
Wastes stored in
surface impound-
ments or tanks, or
treated in tanks;
spent halogenated
and nonhalogenated
solvents
Wastes stored in
containers or
tanks, or treated
in tanks; spent
halo genated or
nonhalogenated
solvents,
2-butanone, toluene
Spills; organic
chemicals, priority
pollutants
Polychlorinated
biphenols (PCB's)
Landfill
Landfill.
Inorganic
industrial waste
Polychlorinated
biphenols (PCB's)
Polychlorinated
biphenols (PCB's)
Gas station
Barrels. Possibly
containing solvents
Chemical product
manufacturing
E-31
-------
Table 16.—Confirmed or possible ground-water-contamination sites in
Wayne County—Continued
Site
number
Site name
Site location
Nature of site
WA80 Palmer Street at
Railroad (3)
WA81 Unistrut Corporation
(3)
WA82 Troy Auto Parts (3)
WAS3 Inkster Rd. Oil
Contamination
(Dimattia Enterprises)
(3)
WA84 Mich. Con Station B (3)
WA8S Central Ave
Wyandotte (3)
WA86 Mich. Con Station J
(3)
WA87 Mich. Con Melvindale
Plant (3)
IS 12E 32AC
2S 9E 28CC
IS 12E 10BA
2S 9E 24DDA
2S 12E 10AAC
3S HE 32CDB
2S HE 3CBA
2S HE 30ADC
Oil storage
Metal processing.
Oil, xylene
Automobile junkyard
Coal gasification
Phenols, toluene
vinyl chloride,
mercury, lead,
cyanide
Coal gasification
Coal gasification
E-32
-------
Table 17.—Confirmed or possible ground-water-contamination sites in
Chippewa County
[The use of industry or firm names in this report is for identification or
location purposes only and does not impute responsibility for any present or
potential effects on the natural resources. The first two segments of the
site location designate township and range, the third segment designates
section, and the letters A through D designate successively smaller 1/4
subdivisions of the section; see Site-Location System. References to
footnotes are numbered and are given in parenthesis following each site name.]
Site
number Site name Site location
Nature of site
CHI
CH2
CH3
CH4
Bay Mills Township 47N 3W 35AC
Sanitary Landfill (1,2)
Montero Excavation Inc. 47N 1W 24AA
(1,2)
Dafter Sanitary Landfill 46N 1W 33C
(Ed Reid Landfill)
(1,2)
CHS
Sault Ste. Marie
Disposal (Union
Carbide) (2,3)
Cannelton Industries
Tannery Disposal
(2,3)
47N IE 8BA
47N 1W 11AB
Landfill.
Household waste
Landfill.
Demolition debris
Household and light
industrial waste
Lime-waste pile;
contains calcium
oxide, carbon,
cyanide, ferric
oxide, silica
alumina
Leather tanning;
soils and river
sediments contain
high levels of
chromium, lead,
copper, cyanide
Tom Work, Michigan Department of Natural Resources, written comm., 1986.
Mark Petrie, Michigan Department of Natural Resources, written comm., 1986.
Michigan Sites of Environmental Contamination-Priority List, Act 307,
Michigan Department of Natural Resources, 1986 and 1987.
E-33
-------
Table 17.—Confirmed or possible ground-water-contamination sites in
Chippewa County—Con t i nued
Site
number
Site name
Site location
Nature of site
CH6 Superior Sanitation 47N 1W 14CD
Landfill (3 Mile Rd.)
(1,2,3)
CH7 Transportation spill,
Soo Township (2,3)
CHS Old Kincheloe
Air Force Base (3)
CH9 Veldt Farm (3)
CH10 Mac's Service (1)
CU11 Soo Line Railroad
Solid Waste Site
(1)
CH12 Soo Township Peterman
Site (3)
47N 1W 12C
45N 1W 31
46N 1W 7AD
47N 1W 13CC
47N 1W 11A
47N IE 19ACC
Landfill. Mixed
municipal and
industrial waste,
no known hazardous
waste
Truck transport;
methylene chloride,
1,1,1-trichloro-
ethane
Trichloroethylene
PBB
Landfill
Landfill.
Construction and
demolition debris,
trees, inert waste
Automobile
junkyard. Fuel
oil, lead and zinc
E-34
-------
Table 18.—Nature of contamination at waste sites in each
ground-water-di scharge area
[The use of industry or firm names in this report is for identification or
location purposes only and does not impute responsibility for any present or
potential effects on the natural resources. Analyses included in the table
were made by private laboratories. Results in some instances are reported in
ppb (parts per billion) and in ppm (parts per million). Ppm and ppb are
essentially equivalent to mg/L (milligrams per liter) and ug/L (micrograms per
liter), respectively, used at other places in this report. References to
footnotes are numbered and are given in parameters following each site name.]
Area Nature of contamination
1 No waste sites are in Area 1.
2 Eight waste sites are in Area 2. Two sites, SCI5 and
SC16 have analyses.
Site SC15; On site soil samples indicate low levels
of 1,1-dichloroethane, 1,1,1-trichloroethane and
toluene. The samples also revealed up to 1,587 ppb of
phenol and up to 3,400 ppb of aroclor 1260. There are
no analyses of ground water from or downgradient of
the site.
Site SCI6; Analyses of ground water indicate that
toluene, xylene, TCE, and PCE are present.
Concentrations, however, are unknown. No analyses of
water downgradient from the site have been made.
3 One waste site is in Area 3. There are no chemical
analyses of ground water from the site or downgradient.
4a One waste site is in Area 4a. There are no chemical
analysis of ground water available from the site or
downgradient.
4b Two waste sites are in Area 4b. There are no chemical
analyses of ground water available from the site or
downgradient.
5 Eleven waste sites are in Area 5. Three sites MA6,
MA41a, and MA66 have analyses.
Site MA6; A nearby stream is contaminated with
phenols. No analyses of ground water from the site or
downgradient have been made.
E-35
-------
Table 18.—Nature of contamination at waste sites in each
ground-water-discharge area—Continued
Area Nature of contamination
5 (continued) Site MAAla! There are seven locations at which
contamination is known; the maximum concentrations of
contaminants revealed in analyses of water from
monitoring wells are listed below.
(1) Southwest Sanitary Landfill
Phenols - 435 ug/L
Soluble copper - l.lmg/L
Cadmium - 0.019 rng/L
Methylene chloride - 84 ug/L
1,2 trans-dichloroethylene - 71 ug/L
Toluene - 52 ug/L
Vinyl chloride - 45 ug/L
Ethyl benzene - 44 ug/L
Trichloroethylene -6.7 ug/L
Benzene - 51 ug/L
(2) Fire Training area 2
Phenols - 17 ug/L
Petroleum hydrocarbons - 2.4 mg/L
Trichloroethylene - 2.4 ug/L
Methylene chloride - 6.6 ug/L
(3) Fire Training area 1
Petroleum hydrocarbons - 1.0 mg/L
Phenols - 7 ug/L
(4) West Ramp
Petroleum hydrocarbons - 2.4 mg/L
, Trichloroethylene - 2.5 ug/L
Methylene chloride - 4.7 ug/L
(5) Tucker Creek Landfill
Phenols 40 ug/L (upgradient well)
Soluble cadmium - 0.014 mg/L
Copper - 1.9 mg/L
Lead - 0.044 mg/L
Oil and grease - 1.17 mg/L
Trichloroethylene - 3.1 ug/L
E-36
-------
Table 18.—Nature of contamination at waste sites in each
ground-wat er-d i s charge area—Cont i nued
Area Nature of contamination
5 (continued) (6) Northwest Sanitary Landfill
Phenols - 15 ug/L
Soluble copper - 1.6 mg/L
Lead - 0.024 mg/L
Oil and grease - 3.7 mg/L (upgradient well)
Trichloroethylene - 2.2 ug/L
(7) East Ramp
Petroleum hydrocarbons - 9.2 mg/L
Trichloroethylene - 9.0 ug/L
Site MA66; Exact location of wells sampled is
unknown; maximum concentrations in water were:
0.118 mg/L barium, 0.036 mg/L lead, 2 mg/L oil and
grease, 410 ug/L bis (2-ethyl hexyl) phthalate,
190 ug/L butyl benzl phthalates-, 650 ug/L
dioctylphthalate, and 1 ug/L methylene chloride.
6 One waste site is in Area 6. There are no chemical
analyses of ground water available from this site or
downgradient.
7a Twenty-one waste sites are in Area 7a. Analyses of
ground water from one site MA65 revealed the presence of
acetone. Concentrations are unknown. There are no
chemical analyses of ground water available
downgradient.
7b Twenty-eight waste sites are in Area 7b. Seven sites
OA13, WA23, WA66, WA70, WA72 and WA84 have analyses.
Site OA13; Analyses of water from monitoring wells
around the disposal area indicate toluene and
chloroform (1-5 ug/L for both) to be present.
Tetrahydrofuran was also detected from 40-400 ug/L.
No analyses of ground water downgradient from the site
have been made.
E-37
-------
Table 18.—Nature of contamination at waste sites in each
ground-water-discharge area—Continued
Area Nature of contamination
7b (continued) Site WA23; The Detroit River borders the site.
Analyses of ground water from on site monitoring wells
have revealed the following maximum concentrations:
Arsenic, total - 0.61 mg/L
Chromium, total - 0.69 mg/L
Copper - 9.7 mg/L
Cyanide - 28 mg/L
Lead - 30 mg/L
Mercury, total - 120 ug/L
Nickel - 0.82 mg/L
Phenol, total - 0.77 mg/L
Selenium - 0.04 mg/L
Zinc - 9.8 mg/L
Acenaphthene - 0.039 mg/L
Acenaphthylene - 0.052 mg/L
Anthracene - 0.051 mg/L
Benzene - 3.5 mg/L
Benzo (a) anthracene - 0.083 mg/L
Benzo (a) pyrene - 0.018 mg/L
Benzo (g,h,i) perylene - 0.016 mg/L
Benzo (k) fluoranthene - 0.07 mg/L
Bis (2-ethyl hexyl) phthalate - 0.021 mg/L
Chrysene - 0.13 mg/L
Dibenzo (a,h) anthracene - 0.004 rag/L
Ethyl benzene - 2.6 mg/L
Fluoranthene - 0.48 mg/L
Fluorene - 0.39 mg/L
Indeno (1,2,3-cd) pyrene - 0.009 mg/L
Methylene chloride - 2.5 mg/L
Naphthalene - 2.2 mg/L
Phenanthrene - 0.68 mg/L
Pyrene - 0.61 mg/L
Toluene - 0.21 mg/L
Trichloroethylene - 0.024 mg/L
Site WA66; Analyses of ground water from on site
monitoring wells have been made. The maximum
concentrations of benzene, toluene and xylene are 2.07
ppm, 3.39 ppm and 42.34 ppm respectively. The maximum
pH was 11.4. There are no analyses of ground water
downgradient.
E-38
-------
Table 18.—Nature of contamination at waste sites in each
ground-wat er-d i s charge area—Con t i nued
Area Mature of contamination
7b (continued) Site WA70; Analyses of ground water from monitoring
wells located around the perimeter of the site have
been made. One well had a high chloride level,
730 ppm and a high pH, 9.6. Another well had 560 ppm
of sulfate. Chloroform (0.014-.61 ppb) and benzene
(0.01-.07 ppb) were also detected. There are also low
levels of organics (concentrations unknown). There
are no analyses of ground water downgradient.
Site WA72; Analyses of the contents of waste drums
located on the site revealed up to 500,000 ppm of
PCB's. Soil samples from near the site had
concentrations of PCB's up to 96,000 ppm. Analyses of
ground water from monitoring wells revealed elevated
levels of arsenic (0.57 mg/L), cadmium (0.03 mg/L),
chromium (0.15 mg/L), lead (0.43 mg/L), iron
(170 mg/L) and manganese (4.8 mg/L).
Site WAS4; The Detroit River borders the site.
Analyses of ground water from on site monitoring wells
have revealed the following maximum concentrations:
Antimony - 2.3 ug/L
Arsenic - 35 ug/L
Chromium, total - 0.25 mg/L
Cyanide, total - 6.8 mg/L
Mercury, total - 4.2 ug/L
Phenol, total - 0.92 mg/L
Selenium, total - 7.0 ug/L
Xylene - 3.9 mg/L
Zinc, total - 39 mg/L
Acenaphthene - 91 mg/L
Acenaphthylene - 360 mg/L
Anthracene - 150 mg/L
Benzene - 23 mg/L
Benzo (a) anthracene - 230 mg/L
Benzo (a) pyrene - 820 mg/L
Benzo (g,h,i) perylene - 460 mg/L
Benzo (k) fluoranthene - 500 mg/L
Bis (2-ethyl hexyl) phthalate - 1 mg/L
Chrysene - 250 mg/L
Dibenzo (a,h) anthracene - 99 mg/L
Di-n-butyl phthalate - 0.001 mg/L
Ethyl benzene - 6.7 mg/L
Fluoranthene - 200 mg/L
Fluorene - 170 mg/L
E-39
-------
Table 18.—Nature of contamination at waste sites in each
ground-water-discharge area—Continued
Area Nature of contamination
7b (continued) Site WA84; (continued)
Indeno (1,2,3-cd) pyrene - 320 mg/L
Naphthalene - 810 mg/L
Phenanthrene - 280 mg/L
Pyrene - 170 mg/L
1,1,1-Trichloroethane - 0.002 mg/L
Toluene - 2.8 mg/L
Site WA86; Subsurface soil samples revealed the
following maximum concentrations:
- 86 ppm
oenzo (a) antnracene - Oiu ppn
Benzene -9.4 ppm
Bis (2-ethyl hexyl) phthalate
Chromium - 12 ppm
Lead - 500 ppm
Mercury - 2 ppm
Phenanthrene - 700 ppm
Various PNA's - 30-250 ppm
Pyrene - 780 ppm
Toluene - 32 ppm
Xylene - 33 ppm
There are no analyses of ground water from or
downgradient of the site.
8 The site WA20 is Area 8. There are no chemical analyses
available on site.
9 Two waste sites are in Area 9. Analyses of ground water
from one site WA49 revealed up to 80 ug/L of cadmium and
chromium, .82 mg/L of lead, 420 ug/L of chloride, 17
mg/L of iron, 1,500 mg/L of sulfate, 31 mg/L of iron,
.96 mg/L of manganese, 3.8 mg/L of barium, 2.8 mg/L of
fluoride, .012 mg/L of selenium, 250 mg/L of sodium, .03
Ug/L of 2,4-D and 0.15 mg/L of phenols. Exact locations
of the four monitoring wells are unknown (1 upgradient,
3 downgradient).
10 Ten waste sites are in Area 10. Six sites, WA28, WA29,
WAI5, WA51, WA57 and WA85 have analyses.
E-40
-------
Table 18.—Nature of contamination at waste sites in each
ground-water-discharge area—Continued
Area Nature of contamination
10 (continued) Site WA28; There are five smaller sites on this
property. Analyses were performed in 1981 by the
property owners. There are more recent samples;
however, changes in well names, additional drilling,
destroyed wells, etc., have made determining the sample
locations difficult. The following maximum
concentrations are from wells near the smaller sites.
Site 1: Copper - 0.12 ppm
Zinc - 9.7 ppm
Benzene - 1,006 ppb
Toluene - 1,382 ppb
Ethyl benzene - 61 ppb
Naphthalene - 12 ppb
Bis (2-ethyl hexyl) phthalate - 12 ppb
Phenol - 25 ppb
2,4-Dimethylphenol - 68 ppb
Xylene - 137 ppb
Methyl phenyl acetylene - 12 ppb
Benzofuran - 112 ppb
Thiophene - 68 ppb
2-Methyl thiophene - 53 ppb
Aniline - 27 ppb
Methylaniline - 44 ppb
Dimethyl phenols - 173 ppb
Cresols - 92 ppb
Phenyl acetic acid - 125 ppb
1,2-Dichloropropane - 28 ppb
Methylene chloride - 50 ppb
Styrene - 537 ppb
Toluene diamine - 42 ppb
Indene - 158 ppb
Chloroform - 18 ppb
Site 2: Chromium - 0.27 ppm
Copper - 0.05 ppm
Lead - 0.46 ppm
Zinc - 10.4 ppm
Benzene - 19 ppb
Naphthalene - 131 ppb
Phenol - 0.41 ppb
Methylene chloride - 42 ppb
Styrene - 20 ppb
Indene - 160 ppb
Trimethylbenzene - 200 ppb
Acenaphthene - 22 ppb
E-41
-------
Table 18.—Nature of contamination at waste sites in each
ground-water-discharge area—Continued
Area Nature of contamination
10 (continued) Site 2: (continued)
Fluorene - 23 ppb
Phenanthrene - 20 ppb
Anthracene - 75 ppb
Pyrene - 93 ppb
Site 3: Cadmium - 0.12 ppm
Chromium - 0.2 ppm
Copper - 0.34 ppm
Lead - 0.7 ppm
Zinc - 13.3 ppm
Benzene - 10 ppb
Toluene - 271 ppb
Phenol - 88 ppb
2,4-Dimethylphenol - 153 ppb
Aniline - 142 ppb
1,2-Dichloropropane - 301 ppb
Methylene chloride - 39 ppb
Chloroform - 54 ppb .
Bis (2-chloroisopropyl) ether - 324 ppb
Naphthalene - 105 ppb
Pyrene - 927 ppb
p-Chloro-m-cresol - 18 ppb
2,4-Dichlorophenol - 24 ppb
Benzoic acid - 126 ppb
1,3-Dichloropropane - 38 ppb
Sites 4 and 5: Chromium - 0.03 ppm
Copper - 0.34 ppm
Lead - 0.3 ppm
Zinc - 14.7 ppm
Benzene - 1,143 ppb
Toluene - 530 ppb
Ethyl benzene - 35 ppb
Naphthalene - 2,170 ppb
Bis (2-ethyl hexyl) phthalate - 459 ppb
Phenol - 39 ppb
Xylene - 1,838 ppb
Benzofuran - 343 ppb
Thiophene - 64 ppb
Aniline - 16 ppb
Dimethyl phenols - 71 ppb
p-Cresol - 259 ppb
Phenyl acetic acid - 555 ppb
Indene - 1,305 ppb
E-42
-------
Table 18.—Nature of contamination at waste sites in each
ground-wat er-di scharge area—Con t i nued
Area Nature of contamination
10 (continued) Sites 4 and 5: (continued)
Indane - 124 ppb
Dimethyl benzene - 40 ppb
Isopropyl benzene - 328 ppb
Fluorene - 31 ppb
Pyridine - 1,328 ppb
Ethyl pyridine - 811 ppb
Benzoic acid - 238 ppb
Di (2-ethyl hexyl) adipate - 624 ppb
Site WA29: There are three smaller sites on this
property. Analyses were performed in 1981 by the
property owners. There are more recent samples;
however, changes in well names and locations have made
determining the sample locations difficult. The
following maximum concentrations are from wells near
these smaller sites.
Site 6: Cadmium - 0.18 ppm
Chromium - 26.6 ppm
Copper - 17.7 ppm
Lead - 62.4 ppm
Mercury, total - 1.96 ppm
Zinc - 67.5 ppm
Toluene - 11 ppb
Bis (2-ethyl hexyl) phthalate - 35 ppb
Phenyl acetic acid - 114 ppb
1,2-Dichloropropane - 1,447 ppb
Methylene chloride - 50 ppb
Chloroform - 26 ppb
1,2-Dichloroethane - 83 ppb
Bis (2-chloroisopropyl) ether - 223 ppb
Di-n-butylphthalate - 20 ppb
Benzoic acid - 267 ppb
Site 7: Cadmium - 0.19 ppm
Chromium - 0.03 ppm
Copper - 0.46 ppm
Lead - 2.9 ppm
Zinc - 17 ppm
Thiophene - 3,850 ppb
Phenyl acetic acid - 117 ppb
1,2-Dichloropropane - 75 ppb
Dichlorobutadiene - 2,395 ppb
Trichlorobutadiene - 1,800 ppb
Tetrachlorobutadiene - 2,900 ppb
E-43
-------
Table 18.—Nature of contamination at waste sites in each
ground-water-discharge area—Continued
Area
Nature of contamination
10 (continued)
Site 7: (continued)
1,2-Dichloroethylene - 1,510 ppb
Vinyl chloride - 545 ppb
Trichloroethylene - 2,785 ppb
t-l,2-Dichloroethylene - 1,098 ppb
Site 8: Copper - 0.18 ppm
Mercury, total - 0.0008 ppm
Zinc - 2.1 ppm
1,3-Dichloropropane - 107 ppb
Bis (2 chloroisopropyl) ether - 12 ppb
Site WA15; Results of the analyses of water samples
from hand-dug holes are listed below. Locations of the
holes is unknown.
Range
Mean
pH (units)
COD (mg/L)
BOD (mg/L)
TOC (mg/L)
Grease and Oil (mg/L)
MBAS (mg/L)
Total Solids (mg/L)
Suspended Solids (mg/L)
Volatile Solids (mg/L)
Total Phosphorus (as P)
Total Kjeldahl N (mg/L)
Ammonia (mg/L)
Sulfate (mg/L)
Sulfide (mg/L)
Cyanide (mg/L)
Arsenic (mg/L)
Cadmium (mg/L)
Total Chromium (mg/L)
Chromium,
hexavalent (mg/L)
Aluminum (mg/L)
Antimony (mg/L)
Beryllium (mg/L)
Cobalt (mg/L)
Copper (mg/L)
Lead (mg/L)
7.4
335
300
66
40
1
4,900
10
560
<0.03
4
<0.1
240
-------
Table 18.—Nature of contamination at waste sites in each
ground-wat er-d i s charge area—Con t i nued
Area Nature of contamination
10 (continued) Site WAI 5: (continued)
Mercury (mg/L) 0.01
Nickel (mg/L) <0.01
Selenium (mg/L) 0.06
Silver (mg/L) <0.1
Zinc (mg/L) <0.1
Chloroform (ug/L) 5
1,2-Dichloroethane (ug/L) 50
1,2-Dichloropropane (ug/L) 86
1,1, 1-Trichloro-
ethane (ug/L) 9
Tetrachloroethylene (ug/L) 11
Benzene (ug/L) 1
Toluene (ug/L) 550
Ethylbenzene (ug/L) 44
Chlorobenzene (ug/L) 13
2-Chlorophenol (ug/L) 8
2-Nitrophenol (ug/L) 70
Phenol (ug/L) 15
2,4-Dimethylphenol (ug/L) 5
2,4-Dichlorophenol (ug/L) 10
Trichlorophenol (ug/L) 5
p-Chloro-m-cresol (ug/L) 15
4-6-Dinitro-o-cresol (ug/L)
Pentachlorophenol (ug/L) 80
4-Nitrophenol (ug/L) 25
Naptholene (ug/L) 40
Anthracene (ug/L) 90
Pyrene (ug/L) 230
Acenaphthylene (ug/L) 170
Fluorene (ug/L) 75
Chrysene (ug/L)
Acenaphthene (ug/L) 125
Fluoranthene (ug/L) 1,115
Dichlorobenzene (ug/L)
Di-n-octyl phthalate (ug/L) 100
Dibutyl phthalate (ug/L)
- 2.5
- 5.3
- 0.55
- 0.8
- 2.9
- 44
- 340
- 195
- 104
- 62
- 840
- 2,480
- 275
- 1100
- 615
- 115
- 3,000
- 465
- 660
- 1,010
- 145
—
- 1,300
- 145
- 27,000
- 13,300
- 10,500
- 4,200
- 2,550
—
- 1,450
- 2,445
—
- 300
—
0.870
1.8
0.27
0.27
0.94
16
175
135
30
25
157
1,515
117
557
168
93
534
109
335
270
75
35
458
70
3,723
2,869
3,942
1,071
758
150
579
1,780
125
200
160
The maximum concentrations from 1985-86 quarterly
monitoring well samples are as follows:
Benzo (a) pyrene - 337 ppb
Napthalene - 5,428 ppb
PCB's - 0.14 ppb
E-45
-------
Table 18.—Nature of contamination at waste sites in each
ground-water-discharge area—Continued
Area Nature of contamination
10 (continued) Site WAI5; (continued)
Pentachlorophenol - 69 ppb
Mercury - 4,900 ppb
Arsenic - 36,000 ppb
Site WA22; Analyses from one of five monitoring wells
revealed the following concentrations:
Chloride - 14,350 mg/L
Manganese - 3.21 mg/L
Sodium - 7,752 mg/L
Sulfate - 1,251 mg/L
Nickel - 0.51 mg/L
PCB 1260 - 0.019 mg/L
This well is located across a stream and downgradient
from the site.
Site WA51: Analyses of water from wells at the site
showed the following maximum concentrations:
Barium - 3.9 mg/L
Cadmium - 0.05 mg/L
Chromium - 0.05 mg/L
Fluoride - 4.1 mg/L
Lead - 1.2 mg/L
Mercury - 0.0088 mg/L
Chloride - 820 mg/L
Iron - 31 mg/L
Manganese - 3.3 mg/L
Phenols - 71 mg/L
The samples were collected from four wells (one
upgradient, three downgradient); however, which
analyses belongs to which well cannot be determined
with current data.
10 Site WA57; The site borders on the Detroit River.
Analyses from on site monitoring wells revealed the
following maximum concentrations:
Aluminum - 22.5 mg/L
Ammonia - 24.3 mg/L
Calcium - 1,130 mg/L
Chloride - 54,400 mg/L
E-46
-------
Table 18.—Nature of contamination at waste sites in each
ground-water-discharge area—Continued
Area Nature of contamination
10 (continued) Site WAS 7: (continued)
Iron - 182 mg/L
Magnesium - 104 mg/L
Manganese - 3.8 mg/L
Potassium - 128 mg/L
Selenium - 0.02 mg/L
Sodium - 36,900 mg/L
Vanadium - 0.35 mg/L
Aroclor 1254 - 32 ug/L
Aroclor 1260 - 2.0 ug/L
Benzo (a) anthracene - 550 ug/L
Benzo (b) fluoranthene - 500 ug/L
Chlorobenzene - 1000 ug/L
Chloroform - 8,500 ug/L
2-chloronaphthalene - >1700 ug/L
2-chlorophenol - 200 ug/L
Dichlorobenzene, total - 1,266
Fluoranthene - 24 ug/L
Methylene chloride - 1,700 ug/L
2-Methylnaphthalene - 150 ug/L
Naphthalene - 3,400 ug/L
Pyrene - 700
10 (continued) Site WAS 5; Analyses of ground water from the site
indicated the presence of phenols, sodium, chloride,
sulfate, 1,2-dichloroethane, 1 ,2-dichloropropane,
methylene chloride, toluene, vinyl chloride, phthalate
esters, mercury, lead and cyanide. The location of
sampling points and contaminant concentrations are
unknown. The site is approximately one half mile from
the Trenton channel, WA57 Pennwalt Corporation is
downgradient from the site.
11 Three waste sites are in Area 11. Two sites WAS, and
WA7 have analyses.
Site WAS! Analyses of ground water wells located on
site revealed the following maximum concentrations:
Calcium - 1,400 mg/L
Chloride - 370 mg/L
Chromium - 0.14 mg/L
Iron - 2.6 mg/L
Lead - .3 mg/L
E-47
-------
Table 18.—Nature of contamination at waste sites in each
ground-wat er-d i scharge area—Con t i nued
Area Nature of contamination
11 (continued) Site WAS; (continued)
Magnesium - 350 mg/L
Manganese - 270 ug/L
Potassium - 3.5 mg/L
Sodium - 85 mg/L
Zinc - 120 ug/L
Site WA7; Analyses of ground water from wells on site
revealed elevated levels of sodium (max. cone.
17,500 mg/L), sulfate (max. cone. 7,410 mg/L),
conductivity (max. 27,800), total phosphorus
(7,300 mg/L) and arsenic (max. cone. 60 mg/L).
12 One waste site is in Area 12. There are no chemical
analyses of ground water available from the site or
downgradient.
13 Eight waste sites are located in Area 13. Three sites,
CH4, CH5 and CH7 have analyses.
Site CH4; Analyses of one ground water sample next to
the waste pile revealed that chromium and lead exceed
the standards; concentrations were 1,200 ug/L and
370 ug/L, respectively. Aluminum and nickel also had
high concentrations at 410,000 ug/L and 570 ug/L,
respectively. There are no chemical analyses
available downgradient.
Site CH5; Analyses of ground water collected at the
site in 1979 and 1986 are listed below (only maximum
concentrations are shown).
1979 1986
Total lead - 2.4 ppm Lead - 0.08 ppm
Total chromium - 440 ppm Manganese,
Total copper - 1.1 ppm dissolved - 0.34 ppm
Total manganese - 2.14 ppm Iron,
Total arsenic - 0.3 ppm dissolved - 0.35 ppm
Total iron - 19 ppm
Samples of St. Marys River sediment collected in 1976
had chromium concentrations ranging from 8 to
2,200 mg/kg.
E-48
-------
Table 18.—Nature of contamination at waste sites in each
ground-wat er-d i a charge area—Con t i nued
Area Nature of contamination
Site CH7: A tanker truck spilled trichloroethane and
methylene chloride. Neither of the chemicals has been
detected in nearby residential wells; however,
trichloroethane has been found in a stream at 1.4 ppb.
14 No waste sites are in Area 14.
15 No waste sites are in Area 15 (Sugar Island).
16 No waste sites are in Area 16 (Neebish Island).
E-49
-------
Waste-Site Ranking System
As part of this investigation, it was necessary to evaluate the potential
effect of waste sites on the,quality of ground water in the connecting
channels. Sites were ranked using USEPA's DRASTIC system (Aller and
others, 1985) with modifications and additions.
System Design
The DRASTIC system uses seven features to determine contamination
potential: depth to water, net recharge, aquifer media, soil media,
topography, vadose media, and hydraulic conductivity. Each feature is
assigned a weight factor, ranging from 1 to 5, on the basis of the effect of
that feature relative to the effects of other features. Features with the
most adverse effect were assigned a value of 5; those with the least adverse
effect were assigned a value of 1.
The features are divided into units referred to as ranges (table 19);
each range is assigned a numerical rating value. The rating value, ranging
from 1 to 10, is assigned to each range based on the effect of that range
relative to the effect of other ranges in that feature. Ranges with the most
adverse effect were assigned a value of 10, those with the least adverse
effect were assigned a value of 1.
Minor modifications were made to the definitions of the DRASTIC features
"depth to water" and "aquifer media" and to the weight factor for "net
recharge". Modifications are as follows:
(1) "Depth to water" was modified to include all saturated zones below
the water table, including those zones that have insufficient
permeability to yield significant quantities of water to wells. In
addition, the potentiometric surface, rather than the top of the
confined aquifer, was used because, at many places, it was not
possible to characterize the aquifer. As modified, "depth to water"
is defined by the depth to water in wells.
(2) "Net recharge" was assigned a weight factor of 1, three points less
than that used in DRASTIC. This modification was made because
throughout the study area, the geology does not differ appreciably
and variation in precipitation is minor. A net-recharge weight
6 Ranking of sites is based solely on the potential for affecting the water
of the channels. The rankings may or may not correspond to the results of
other procedures designed to evaluate localized ground-water contamination or
its potential impact on human health.
7 DRASTIC is an acronym for a rating system designed to help prioritize the
vulnerabilty of areas to ground-water contamination. The acronymon stands for
the rating factors used in the system: Depth to water, net Recharge, Aquifer
media, JSoil media, Topography, Impact of the vadose zone, and hydraulic
(Conductivity of the aquifer.
E-50
-------
Table 19.—Rating features, ranges, and rating values
of waste-site ranking system
[ft, feet; in., inches; (gal/d)/ft2, gallons per day per square foot]
Feature
Depth to water
(ft)
Net recharge
(in.)
Aquifer media
Range
0-5
5-10
15-30
30-50
50-75
75-100
>100
>10
7-10
4-7
2-4
0-2
Karst limestone
2
Sand and gravel
2
Sand, medium to coarse
2
Till, weathered
Massive limestone
Massive sandstone
Thin-bedded sandstone,
limestone, shale sequence
2
Sand, fine grained, and silt
2
Till, unweathered
2
Clay, lacustrine
Massive shale
Rating value
10
9
7
5
3
2
1
9
8
6
3
1
9-10 (10)
9-10 (10)
7-10 (8)
5-7 (6)
4-9 (6)
4-9 (6)
5-9 (6)
5-9 (5)
3-5 (4)
1-3 (2)
1-3 (2)
Values in parenthesis are typical rating values.
2
The DRASTIC system does not have these ranges, instead the system has the
ranges: Basalt 2-10 (9)
Sand and gravel 6-9 (8)
Weathered metamorphic/igneous 3-5 (4)
Metamorphic/igneous 2-5 (3)
E-51
-------
Table 19.—Rating features, ranges, and rating values
of waste-site ranking system—Continued
Feature
Impact of vadose
zone media
Range
Rating value
Soil media
Topography
(percent slope)
Thin or absent
Gravel
Sand
Shrinking and aggregated clay
Sandy loam
Loam
Silty loam
Clay loam
Nonshrinking and nonaggregated clay
0-2
2-6
6-12
12-18
18+
10
10
9
7
6
5
4
3
1
10
9
5
3
1
Hydraulic conductivity
t(gal/d)/ft2]
Karst limestone
Sand and gravel
Sand and gravel with
significant silt and clay
Bedded limestone, sandstone,
shale
Sandstone
Limestone
Shale
Silt and clay
2000+
1000-2000
700-1000
300-700
100-300
1-100
8-10
6-9
4-8
4-8
4-8
2-7
2-5
1-2
(10)
(8)
(6)
(6)
(6)
(6)
(3)
(1)
10
8
6
4
2
1
The DRASTIC system includes two other ranges that were not used in this
study: Basalt 2-10 (9)
Metamorphic/igneous 2-8 (4)
E-52
-------
factor of 4, combined with the features aquifer media, soil media,
impact of the vadose zone, and hydraulic conductivity of the
aquifer—which already incorporate recharge characteristics—results
in disproportionately high DRASTIC scores.
(3) "Aquifer media" was modified to include all unconsolidated rock and
bedrock that transmits water, whether or not the rocks yield water
in significant quantities. This broader definition of the term was
used because fine sand, silt, and sandy and silty clay, although too
impermeable to yield sufficient water for domestic supplies, allow
for the movement of water and, thus, contaminants.
The ranges within the aquifer and vadose media features (table 19) have
been modified to reflect the broader definition. DRASTIC has ranges for
basalt and metamorphic/igneous rocks; however, these rocks are not found in
the connecting-channels study area; thus, these ranges were not used. Till
and additional sand and silt ranges were included in each feature as part of
the modified definition.
The assessment of the potential for a site to have an adverse affect on
the connecting channels was improved by including the distance of the site
from the channels, the distance from major tributaries to the channels, and
the types of pollutants at the site in the ranking procedure. Four rating
features were added to DRASTIC: (1) occurrence of priority pollutants, (2)
occurrence of primary and secondary inorganic contaminants, (3) site proximity
to connecting channels, and (4) site proximity to major tributaries of
connecting channels. Distances from sites to connecting channels and major
tributaries were determined along the paths of ground-water flow. Table 20
shows the range and rating values for each feature; table 21 defines the
ranges used to assess substantially different conditions with respect to
contaminants.
Ranking of sites by use of the modified DRASTIC system is based on the
DRASTIC score that was obtained by multiplying the rating value by the
appropriate weight factor (table 22). The maximum score possible for a site
is 350.
E-53
-------
Table 20.—Rating features and ranges and rating values
added to DRASTIC
[mi, mile]
Feature Range Rating value
Occurrence of Presence confirmed; migration
priority pollutants confirmed 10
Presence confirmed; migration
unconfirmed 8
Presence unconfirmed 6
Presence confirmed; migration
undetected 4
Not present 0
Occurrence of primary Presence of primary contaminant
and secondary inorganic confirmed; migration confirmed 10
contaminants Presence of secondary contaminant
confirmed; migration confirmed 8
Presence of primary contaminant
confirmed; migration unconfirmed 7
Presence unconfirmed 6
Presence of secondary contaminant
confirmed; migration unconfirmed 5
Presence of primary contaminant
confirmed; migration undetected 4
Presence of secondary contaminant
confirmed; migration undetected 2
Not present 0
Site proximity to 0-1/2 10
connecting channels 1/2-1 8
(mi) 1-2 6
2-5 4
5-10 2
10+ 0
Site proximity to major 0-1/4 10
tributaries of connecting 1/4-1/2 8
channels (mi) 1/2-1 6
1-2 4
2-3 2
3+ 1
E-54
-------
Table 21.—Definition of ranges for priority-pollutant and
inorganic-contaminant features of waste-site ranking system
Contaminants
Range
Definition
Priority pollutants
Primary and secondary ,
inorganic contaminants
Presence confirmed;
migration confirmed
Presence confirmed;
migration unconfirmed
Presence confirmed;
migration undetected
Not present
Presence of primary
contaminant confirmed;
migration confirmed.
Presence of secondary
contaminant confirmed;
migration confirmed.
Priority pollutants
known to be at site;
detected in ground
water at or near site.
Priority pollutants
known to be at site,
but no monitoring
wells installed or no
data obtained on
migration.
Priority pollutants
known to be at site,
but not detected in
water from monitoring
wells.
Evidence indicates
priority pollutants
not at site.
A contaminant is
known to be at site;
detected in ground
water at or near site.
A contaminant is
known to be at site;
detected in ground
water at or near site.
Priority pollutants are substances selected for regulation under the Clean
Water Act because of their toxicity, persistence, degradability, and the
affect of the pollutant on organisms living in water.
A primary inorganic chemical is one for which USEPA has established Primary
Maximum Contaminant Levels for drinking water (U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 1986b); a secondary inorganic chemical is one for which
USEPA has established Secondary Maximum Contaminant Levels for drinking
water (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1986c). Brine is included in
the secondary catetory.
E-55
-------
Table 21.—Definition of ranges for priority-pollutant and
inorganic-contaminant features of waste-site
ranking system—Continued
Contaminants
Range
Definition
Primary and secondary
inorganic contaminants-
Continued
Presence of primary
contaminant confirmed;
migration unconfirmed.
Presence unconfirmed.
Presence of secondary
contaminant confirmed;
migration unconfirmed.
Presence of primary
contaminant confirmed;
migration undetected.
Presence of secondary
contaminant confirmed;
migration undetected.
Not present
A contaminant is known
to be at site but no
monitoring wells
installed or no data
obtained on migration.
No information avail-
able.
A contaminant is known
to be at site; but no
monitoring wells in-
stalled or no data
obtained on migration.
A contaminant is known
to be at site, but not
detected in water from
monitoring wells.
A contaminant is known
to be at site, but not
detected in water from
monitoring wells.
Evidence indicates
primary and secondary
contaminants not at
site.
E-56
-------
Table 22.—Summary of waste-site ranking system and modified DRASTIC scores
Rating feature
Depth to water table
Net recharge
Aquifer media
Soil media
Topography
Impact of vadose zone
Rating
value
1-10
1-10
1-10
1-10
1-10
1-10
Weight
factor
5
1
3
2
1
5
Modified
DRASTIC
score
5-50
1-10
3-30
2-20
1-10
5-50
Hydraulic conductivity
of the aquifer
Occurrence of priority
pollutants
Occurrence of primary and
secondary inorganic
contaminants
Site proximity to
connecting channels
Site proximity to major
tributaries of connecting
channels
Total score (range)
1-10
0-10
0-10
0-10
1-10
3-30
0-50
0-40
0-50
1-10
21-350
E-57
-------
Ranks and Site Scores
Table 23 gives the rank and site score for 208 sites for which data were
sufficient for use of the modified DRASTIC system.
In general, sites having scores greater than 200 are in areas of sandy
unconsolidated surficial materials and are near connecting channels. The
water table generally is less than 15 ft below land surface, and priority
pollutants and/or inorganic contaminants are on site or in the ground water.
Most sites having scores of 160 to 200 are in areas of fine-grained
surficial materials and are one-half mile to 5 mi from the channel. At many
sites, the water table is 10 to 30 ft below land surface, and priority
pollutants and/or inorganic contaminants are not known to be on site or
information concerning them is not available.
Most sites having scores less than 160 are in areas of clayey surficial
materials and are more than 5 mi from connecting channels. The water table is
15 to 75 ft below land surface, and priority pollutants and/or inorganic
contaminants are not known to be on site or information concerning them is not
available.
E-58
-------
Table 23.—Ranks and scores for confirmed or possible ground-water-
contamination sites
[Ranks and scores were computed using the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency's DRASTIC1 system (Aller and others, 1985). Information in this table
was provided by or compiled from the following: Michigan Sites of
Environmental Contamination-Priority List, Act 307, Michigan Department of
Natural Resources 1986 and 1987; Frank Belobraidich, Michigan Department of
Natural Resources, written commun., 1985, 1986, and 1987; Steve Cunningham,
Michigan Department of Natural Resources, written commun., 1985, 1986, and
1987; Gorman and Akeley, 1978; David Slayton, Michigan Department of Natural
Resources, written commun., 1986 and 1987; Richard Traub, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, written commun., 1986; U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 1986a; Ken Westlake, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, written
commun., 1987; and Tom Work, Michigan Department of Natural Resources, written
commun., 1986]
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Site
number
WA20
WAI 5
WA9
WA11
SC12
SC7
WA22
WAS 5
MA41a
WA23
WA29
MAI 5
WA28
CHS
MA33
2
Site name
Zug Island Great Lake Steel
Federal Marine Terminal Properties
Sibley Quarry
Vulcan Mold and Iron Co.
Hwy M-29 and Michigan St.
Clay Township Sanitary Landfill
Industrial Landfill (Firestone)
Central Ave Wyandotte
Selfridge ANG Base
Mich. Con. Riverside Park
B.A.S.F. Wyandotte South works
South Macomb Disposal Authority 9 and 9A
B.A.S.F. Wyandotte North works
Cannelton Industries Tannery Disposal
Liquid Disposal
Score
290
274
268
268
262
258
253
251
250
250
249
248
248
246
244
DRASTIC is an acronym for a rating system designed to help prioritize the
vulnerability of areas to ground-water contamination. The acronym stands
for the rating factors used in the system: Depth to water, net Recharge,
Aquifer media, Soil media, Topography, ^mpact of the vadose zone, and
hydraulic (Conductivity.
2
The use of industry or firm names in this report is for identification or
location purposes only and does not impute responsibility for any present or
potential effects on the natural resources.
E-59
-------
Table 23.—Ranks and scores for confirmed or possible ground-water-
Rank
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
Site
number
MAI 4
WA46
WA37
WA49
WA51
WAS 7
SC26
WA30
MAI 7
WA36
MA66
CH11
MAS
MA41
MAI 2
WAS 4
MA9
CHI
CH7
SC14
CHS
MA34
WA7
WA50
MAI 6
SC21
WA48
CH4
MA68
MA29
MA11
SCI 3
SC16
SCI 8
WAS 8
contamination sites — Continued
Site name
Ryan and 23 Mile Road
Huron Valley Steel Corp.
Edwards Oil Service, Inc.
Edward C. Levy Co. Plant No. 3
Edward C. Levy Co. Trenton Plant
Pennwalt Corporation
Harsens Island Barrel Dump
Allied Chemical Corp. Detroit Tar Plant
Metro Beach Incinerator
Diver sey Corp.
G and L Industries
Soo Line Railroad Solid Waste Site
Residential wells Cedargrove Road
Selfridge ANC Base
G and H Landfill
McLouth Steel
Hamlin Road Landfill
Bay Mills Township Sanitary Landfill
Transportation spill Soo Township
Sanitary Landfill Area No.l
(Smith Creek Landfill)
Old Kincheloe Air Force Base
Standard Oil Gas Station
Monsanto Co.
Edward C. Levy Co. Plant No. 6
St. Lawrence Cemetery-sawmill
Mueller Brass Co.
Jones Chemicals Inc.
Sault Ste. Marie Disposal (Union Carbide)
NI Industries/Mirrex
Mt. Clemens Coatings and Plastics
(Ford Vinyl and Paint, Mt. Clemens)
Utica Site Cardinal Land Corp.
Grand Trunk Railroad
A and B Waste Disposal
Hoover Chemical Reeves Products
Rouge Steel Co.
Score
242
242
240
239
239
239
237
236
235
233
231
230
230
230
229
229
227
226
226
225
224
224
223
220
219
219
219
218
217
216
211
209
209
209
208
E-60
-------
Table 23.—Ranks and scores for confirmed or possible ground-water-
Rank
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
Site
number
WA84
CU6
SC20
MA3
MAI 3
SC15
WA65
MA42
SC10
MAI 8
WA2
SC25
WA45
MA62
sen
WAS 3
M07
WA32
WA59
MA23
WA10
SCI 7
MA58
WA70
WAS 3
MA31
MA48
MA61
M05
MO2
WA73
MA43
SC8
WA39
MA2
contamination sites — Continued
Site name
Mich. Con. Station B
Superior Sanitation Landfill (3 Mile Road)
Eltra Corp. Prestolite Wiring
Ramona Park Landfill
Red Run Drain Landfill
Wills Street Dump site
Van Dusen Airport Service
Safety Kleen Corporation
County Line Landfill
American Legion
Huron Quarry Sanitary Landfill
General Technical Coatings
CMC Detroit Diesel Allison Division Redford
Henning Road Landfill
Winchester Disposal area
McKesson Chemical Co.
Moo-Lee Co.
Chemical Recovery Systems
Safety Kleen Corp.
Sugarbush
Thorton Landfill
John A. Biewer Company
South Macomb Disposal No. 5
Petro-Chem Processing Inc.
Inkster Rd Oil Contamination
(Dimattia Enterprises)
Rosso Highway SAFB-Avis Ford
Macomb Township Dump
Residential wells Card Road
Wayne Disposal (Rockwood)
Hurt's Landfill
Levy Co. King Road Site
M-97 Landfill
Norman Markel
General Electric Co.
Carolee Street area
Score
207
206
206
205
203
203
203
202
202
201
201
200
200
199
199
199
198
198
198
197
197
196
193
193
193
192
191
191
191
189
189
188
187
187
186
E-61
-------
contamination sites — Continued
Rank
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
Site
number
MA49
WA41
WA40
WA71
MA4
MA22
SCI 9
WA62
WA3
WA21
MA60
WA25
MA47
WA24
WA34
WAS 7
MAS
MA25
MA45
OA12
SCI
SC23
WAI 6
WA69
MA63
MAS 9
WAI 9
WA38
SC22
MAI
MA51
WAI 2
SC4
SC24
WA27
Site name
Mt. Clemens
CMC Cadillac Clark Plant
General Oil Company, Inc.
Chem-Central Romulus
Residential wells Foss Rd.
Detroit Sportsman Congress (A and A Landfill)
Akzo Chemie America
Inkster Gasoline Leak
Pennfill
Norfolk and Western Railroad
Detroit Fill
Cooper School Site
Fourteen Mile Road Site
National Airport Site
Dearborn Refining Co.
Mich. Con. Melvindale Plant
Clinton River Road Disposal area
New Baltimore Sanitary Landfill
Hayes Road Site No. 8
Howard Plating
Belle River Berm Project (Range Road Property)
Fort Gratiot Sanitary Landfill
Dump near Wicks Elementary School
CMC Fisher Body Fort Street
Shores Oil Co.
Detroit Fill
Chera-Met Services
Environmental Waste Control Inc.
St. Clair Rubber Co. Marysville
Malow Landfill
Cardinal (Reitzloff)
Ottawa Silica Co.
Whit comb Barrel Dump
Total Oil Storage
Dynamite Park
Score
186
186
185
185
184
184
183
183
182
182
181
181
180
180
180
180
179
179
179
179
179
179
178
178
177
176
176
176
175
173
173
173
172
172
172
E-62
-------
Table 23.—Ranks and scores for confirmed or possible ground-water-
Rank
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
Site
number
WA67
WAS 2
MA6
CH10
MA32
WA5
MA46
MA50
WA6
WA60
WA68
M01
MO4
OA2
WAI
WA61
MA67
WAI 8
WA33
WA77
MA26-27
M03
WA74
WAS 6
WA42
WA43
WA44
WA47
MA37
WA56
MA20
MA40
MA39
MAS 2
WA26
contamination sites — Continued
Site name
Carters Waste Oil Reclamation Inc.
Troy Auto Parts
New Haven Foundary
Mac's Service
Grosse Points Clinton Waste Reduction Plant
(old Dean site)
McLouth Steel Corp.
Marsack and Son
South Macomb Disposal
Michigan Casting Center
Waste Acid Service Inc.
CMC Detroit Diesel Alllison Romulus Plant
Ash Township
Matlin Road (Carleton)
Reichhold Chemicals Inc.
Ford Motor Company Allen Park Clay Mine
MI Environmental Services Co.
Clark. Gas Station
Peloquin Enterprises St. Aubin
Commercial Steel Treating Corp.
M and H Service Station
Ray Township Transfer Station and Disposal
Station
Edward C. Levy Co.
Young Patriots Park
Mich. Con. Station J
CMC Chevrolet Detroit Assembly
CMC Chevrolet Detroit Forge
GMC Chevolet Detroit Gear and Axle
Inmont Corp.
GMC Technical Center
Nelson Industrial Services
Dean Bros. 25 Mile Chesterfield Township
U.S. Chemical Company Inc.
U.S. Army Tank Automotive Command
South Macomb Disposal
Erving and Vivian Brown Landfill
Score
170
170
169
168
168
168
167
166
166
166
166
165
165
165
165
165
164
164
164
164
163
163
163
163
162
162
162
162
161
161
159
159
158
158
158
E-63
-------
Table 23.—Ranks and scores for confirmed or possible ground-water-
contamination sites—Continued
Rank
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
Site
number
WA81
CH9
WA4
WA31
WAS 5
WA66
WA76
OA1
WAS 2
SC3
WAS
WA75
MA28
OA3
CHI 2
SC2
MAI 9
SC6
CH3
MA30
OA13
WAI 7
MA24
WA78
WA79
WA80
WA35
MA10
SC5
OA4
MA7
MA36
MA38
WA72
OA5
Site name
Uni strut Corporation
Veldt Farm
M and P Development Co.
Ashland Chemical Co.
Michigan Chrome and Chemical Co.
Celanese Plastics Specialities Co.
Huber Foundry
Parker Chemical Company
Master Alloys Inc.
Huron Development (Marine City Sanitary Landfill)
Riverview Land Preserve
Berger-Gordon (Berger Corp.)
Richmond Township Landfill
Safety Kleen Corp.
Soo Township Peterman Site
Howard Disposal
Dean Bros. 27 Mile Lenox Township
Blue Water Construction
Dafter Sanitary Landfill (Ed Reid Landfill)
City of Warren, Refuse Transfer Station
Ethyl Corporation
Peloquin Enterprises Detroit
South Macomb Disposal Authority Transfer Station
Palmer and Brush Streets
Tronex Chemical Corporation
Palmer Street at Railroad
Detrex Chemical Industries Inc.
Koch Road Dump
Vlasic Foods Inc. Sanitary Landfill
Operator unknown
Tuff Kote Dinol Inc.
General Electric Co.
OMI International Corp. Udylite Sel-Rex
Carters Industrials
Southeast Oakland County Incinerator Authority
Score
158
157
157
155
155
155
155
153
153
152
151
151
150
150
149
149
148
148
147
145
145
145
144
143
143
143
142
141
141
140
139
139
139
139
138
E-64
-------
Table 23.—Ranks and scores for confirmed or possible ground-water-
contamination sites—Continued
Rank
Site
number
Site name
Score
191 OA11 Southeast Oakland County Incinerator Authority 138
192 MA64 Fini Finish Products 137
193 MA54 Blundt Dump-Hamtramck or Highland Park 136
194 MAS6 South Macomb Disposal 135
195 OA6 Operator unknown 135
196 OA7 City of Detroit 135
197 OA8 Operator unknown 135
198 OA9 City of Detroit 135
199 OA10 City of Detroit 135
200 WA63 Intervale Lyndon LC 133
201 WA64 Plating Equipment Used Inc. 133
202 MA21 A and A Lenox Township 129
203 MA35 Achem Products Inc. 129
204 CH2 Montero Excavation Inc. 117
205 MA65 GE Carboloy 113
206 MA53 Detroit Fill 111
207 MA55 Detroit Fill 108
208 MA57 Detroit Fill 108
E-65
------- |