Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
HEALTH CONSULTATION
THE FORMER MIRO GOLF COURSE: ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONTAMINATION DATA
VILLAGE OF DOUGLAS, ALLEGAN COUNTY, MICHIGAN
March 2, 2005
Prepared by
The Michigan Department of Community Health Under a Cooperative Agreement with the
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Agency for Toxic Substance and Disease Registry
i
Table of Contents
Table of Contents ............................................................................................................... i List of Tables ...................................................................................................................... i List of Figures.................................................................................................................... ii Summary............................................................................................................................ 4 Purpose and Health Issues ............................................................................................... 4 Background ....................................................................................................................... 4 Discussion........................................................................................................................... 5
Screening Levels............................................................................................................. 5 Environmental Contamination........................................................................................ 7 Human Exposure Pathways ............................................................................................ 8
Ingesting Surface Water.............................................................................................. 9 Indoor Air Exposure ................................................................................................. 10 Exposure in Excavations........................................................................................... 11
Toxicological Evaluation .............................................................................................. 11 p-Isopropyltoluene .................................................................................................... 11
ATSDR Child Health Considerations........................................................................... 11 Community Health Concerns ........................................................................................ 12 Conclusions...................................................................................................................... 13 Recommendations ........................................................................................................... 13
Public Health Action Plan............................................................................................. 13 Preparers of Report ........................................................................................................ 14 References........................................................................................................................ 15 Selected Bibliography ..................................................................................................... 16 Certification..................................................................................................................... 30
List of Tables Table 1. Surface water concentration data for Plume Area at the Former Miro Golf
Course, Douglas, Michigan…………………………………………………….17
Table 2a. Groundwater concentration data for Plume Area at the Former Miro Golf Course, Douglas, Michigan……………………………………………………19
Table 2b. Groundwater concentration data for Source Area at the Former Miro Golf Course, Douglas, Michigan……………………………………………………21
Table 3a. Subsurface soil concentration data for Plume Area at the Former Miro Golf Course, Douglas, Michigan……………………………………………………23 Table 3b. Subsurface soil concentration data for Source Area at the Former Miro Golf Course, Douglas, Michigan……………………………………………………25
ii
Table 4. Exposure pathways matrix for chemicals of concern on and near the Former Miro Golf Course, Douglas, Michigan………………………………………….7
List of Figures Figure 1. The Former Miro Golf Course, Village of Douglas, Allegan County,
Michigan……………………………………………………………………....27 Figure 2. “Plume” and “Source” Investigation Areas, Village of Douglas, Allegan
County, Michigan……………………………………………………………..28
Figure 3. TCE Isoconcentration Map, Village of Douglas, Allegan County, Michigan ………………………………………………………………………………..29 Figure 4. Westshore Golf Course, southeast corner, near Center and Ferry Streets, Douglas, Michigan………………………..……………………………….…..8
iii
Abbreviations and Acronyms µg/L micrograms per liter DWC Drinking Water Criteria EMEG Environmental Media Evaluation Guide EPA Environmental Protection Agency FS Feasibility Study GCC Groundwater Contact Criteria GCPC Groundwater Contact Protection Criteria GSI Groundwater Surface Water Interface Criteria GSIPC Groundwater Surface Water Interface Protection Criteria GVIIC Groundwater Volatilization to Indoor Air Inhalation Criteria MDCH Michigan Department of Community Health MDEQ Michigan Department of Environmental Quality MRL Minimal Risk Level ppb parts per billion ppm parts per million RfD Reference Dose RI Remedial Investigation SVIIC Soil Volatilization to Indoor Air Inhalation Criteria SVOC semivolatile organic compound TCE trichloroethylene VOC volatile organic compound
4
Summary In 2003, the Michigan Department of Community Health (MDCH) released a health consultation for The Former Miro Golf Course in Allegan County, Michigan. Since the release of that document, the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) has had a Remedial Investigation conducted at the site. The site is contaminated with metals, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and volatile organic compounds in surface waters, groundwater, and subsurface soils. The site poses no apparent current public health hazard via vapor intrusion. The future public health hazard for vapor intrusion is indeterminate. The site poses no apparent public health hazard regarding oral intake of area surface waters. The Remedial Investigation did not address arsenic found in the soil at the former Miro Golf Course, discussed in the 2003 health consultation. This issue should be addressed by the owner of the property, under MDEQ oversight.
Purpose and Health Issues The purpose of this document is to provide follow-up to the health consultation, “The Former Miro Golf Course, Village of Douglas, Allegan County, Michigan” (ATSDR 2003). In the previous health consultation, MDCH concluded that contaminated groundwater at the site posed an indeterminate public health hazard to future users of the Miro property. Arsenic contamination of the soil on the Miro property posed an indeterminate public health hazard to current and future users of the site. Since the release of the previous health consultation, MDCH has received additional environmental contamination data from a Remedial Investigation (RI) conducted for the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ). The RI addressed only the soil and groundwater contamination originating from the former Chase Manufacturing (Chase) facility. It did not address the arsenic contamination of the soil on the former Miro Golf Course (Miro), west of the facility (Figure 1). This consultation will re-examine three of the community health concerns addressed in the previous document:
1. What is the likelihood that trichloroethylene (TCE) in the groundwater beneath the Miro property could volatilize into the basements of future homes and present a health hazard to the residents of those homes?
2. Does the TCE in the groundwater present a health hazard to neighboring residents?
3. Does the TCE-contaminated groundwater discharging to area surface waters present a health hazard to persons exposed to those waters (e.g., golfers retrieving golfballs, children playing in the water)?
Background Previous environmental sampling at and around Chase revealed that there were heavy metals in the soil and chlorinated solvents in the groundwater (ATSDR 2003). The state
5
regulatory agency determined that Chase was responsible for the contamination. Although some remediation was done on a county drain affected by effluent from the company’s wastewater treatment plant, transfer of ownership of the Chase property prevented a comprehensive clean-up. (The property is now owned by Haworth Inc.) Part of the contaminated groundwater plume flows under Miro, a former golf course, immediately west of Chase. The Miro property had been slated to be developed for residential and light commercial use and has been zoned as such. No construction has occurred, however some earth moving took place in 2002 before the owner halted activities. (The owner stopped development upon learning of the soil and groundwater contamination.) The future use of this land has yet to be finalized. For this discussion, MDCH is assuming that residential development will occur. MDEQ contracted with Weston Solutions, Inc. (Weston) to conduct a Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS) of the groundwater plume, its source at Chase, and its discharge into area surface waters. Weston finalized the RI report in December 2003. The report’s findings are discussed in the “Environmental Contamination” section below. The final FS report is pending.
Discussion Screening Levels When evaluating environmental data, regulatory and health agencies use screening criteria to determine whether a particular chemical is not of concern or warrants further scrutiny. These criteria are generally human health-based, although some MDEQ criteria are based on the protection of terrestrial or aquatic life or consider aesthetic qualities (taste). The area around Miro is served by municipal water from wells outside of the affected area. Therefore, people would not normally be exposed via the drinking water pathway. However, people swimming or playing in area surface waters, such as Wick’s Creek or Kalamazoo Lake, might inadvertently swallow a small amount of water. The Great Lakes Initiative, as used by the MDEQ Water Bureau, bases its incidental ingestion rate of 10 ml/day on an assumption of 123 hours of recreational exposure per year and an average mouthful of water (30 ml) per hour of recreation (2002, D. Bush, MDEQ Water Bureau, personal communication). MDCH calculated the maximum chemical-specific 10-ml/day dose received from accidental swallowing of contaminated surface water and compared that dose to the lower (i.e., more protective) of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) Reference Dose (RfD) or ATSDR’s Minimal Risk Value (MRL) for the chemical. The RfD and MRL are concentrations below which no adverse health effects should result following exposure (ATSDR 2002). The RfD refers to long-term (chronic) exposure whereas an MRL can refer to short-term (acute), intermediate, or chronic exposure. MDCH also compared the highest analytical result to the lower of the MDEQ Residential and Commercial I Drinking Water Criterion (DWC) or the ATSDR drinking water Environmental Media Evaluation Guide (EMEG) for the chemical. Although, as already
6
stated, area surface waters are not a source of drinking water, MDCH used these screening levels to provide an informal comparison to assist in the evaluation of the degree of health risk. The DWC identifies a drinking water concentration protective of long-term daily consumption (MDEQ 2002a). The EMEG, which applies to a water concentration and not a dose, can refer to acute, intermediate, or chronic exposure (ATSDR 2002). Although people living or playing in the area should not be exposed to the groundwater, the groundwater discharges into area surface waters, where people can be exposed by incidental ingestion during recreational activities (swimming, wading, etc.). To evaluate this potential exposure, MDCH compared groundwater data to the MDEQ Groundwater Surface-Water Interface criteria (GSI). The GSI identify groundwater concentrations that are protective of a receiving surface water. The criteria are based on the most protective value for aquatic life, terrestrial life, or human health (MDEQ 2004). For this dicussion, MDCH used the value protective of human health for surface water that is not a normal source of drinking water. Workers who enter subsurface excavations, such as utility crews entering sewers or construction workers excavating basements, might come into contact with contaminated groundwater or surface water accumulated in those areas. To evaluate this type of exposure, MDCH compared groundwater and surface water data to the MDEQ Groundwater Contact Criteria (GCC). These criteria identify groundwater concentrations that are protective against adverse health effects that may result from dermal exposure to chemicals in groundwater, such as could be experienced by workers in subsurface excavations. The criteria are only protective of chronic systemic human health effects and do not address flammability/explosivity or acute inhalation and dermal toxicity (MDEQ 2002b). Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) present in groundwater may volatilize (change to a gas form), pass through the soil, and enter indoor air through a crack in a building’s foundation. This phenomenon, known as vapor intrusion, can cause indoor air levels of VOCs to reach unsafe levels. To evaluate this pathway, MDCH compared groundwater data to the MDEQ Groundwater Volatilization to Indoor Air Inhalation Criteria (GVIIC). This pathway is relevant only for volatile compounds. The criteria are not applicable if a structure does not contain materials, at or below grade, that limit vapor intrusion (poured cement walls versus soil basements or crawlspaces), there is an open sump, or depth to groundwater is less than 3 meters (about 10 feet) below grade (MDEQ 2002c). Area residents and construction workers could have skin contact with the soil while working on their property (such as in landscaping or adding a deck) or in excavations, respectively. Alternatively, employees at Haworth (the former Chase facility) could be exposed to contaminated soil at their worksite. To evaluate these exposure pathways, MDCH compared subsurface soil data to the MDEQ Residential and Commercial I Direct Contact Criteria (DCC). (Although the Haworth facility is an industrial scenario, several of the sampling locations MDCH included in the Source Area evaluation were off-site and near residential properties.) The DCC identify soil concentrations that are protective
7
against adverse health effects due to long-term ingestion of and dermal exposure to contaminated soil (MDEQ 2002d). Some chemicals have the ability to leach through soils and enter groundwater. The Groundwater Surface Water Interface Protection Criteria (GSIPC) identify soil concentrations of chemicals that are not expected to leach and contaminate groundwater at levels greater than the corresponding GSI criteria (MDEQ 2004). The Groundwater Contact Protection Criteria (GCPC) identifies soil concentrations that are not expected to contaminate groundwater at levels greater than the GCC (MDEQ 2002b). VOCs in soil can volatilize and enter the indoor air of nearby buildings, possibly reaching unsafe concentrations. To evaluate this pathway, MDCH compared groundwater data to the MDEQ Soil Volatilization to Indoor Air Inhalation Criteria (SVIIC). These criteria identify soil concentrations that protect occupants from exposure to indoor air concentrations that may cause adverse health effects. The pathway is relevant only for volatile compounds. The criteria are not applicable if a structure does not contain materials, at or below grade, that limit vapor intrusion (poured cement walls versus soil basements or crawlspaces), or there is an open sump (MDEQ 2002c). Environmental Contamination Earth Tech, Inc., under contract with Weston, performed the field investigation in Douglas from April to July 2003. For this discussion, MDCH considered all sampling sites west of Ferry Street and those sites east of Ferry Street but north of Center Street as the “Plume Area.” MDCH considered the sampling sites east of Ferry Street and south of Center Street as the “Source Area” (Figure 2). (Therefore, the Plume Area as labeled by MDCH contains the Plume Investigation area as well as the Wick’s Creek Investigation area, as described in the RI report [Earth Tech, Inc. 2003]). The investigation included groundwater and surface water samplings and subsurface soil samplings. Samples were analyzed for VOCs, semivolatile organic compounds (SVOCs), and metals. Tables 1-3b show analytical results for chemicals detected in at least one environmental medium and comparisons to screening levels. The TCE groundwater plume isoconcentrations are depicted in Figure 3. In addition to the chemicals listed in the tables, p-isopropyltoluene (or p-cymene) was detected (2.5 µg/L) in one groundwater sample taken in the Source Area. There are no MDEQ criteria nor an RfD or MRL for this compound. Therefore, this chemical is discussed further in the “Toxicological Evaluation” section of this document. Chromium exists in several valence states. MDCH compared all chromium concentrations to the more-protective screening levels for the hexavalent form. If there were exceedances, MDCH further evaluated the findings, referring to the raw data (laboratory data sheets). The GSI and the GSIPC for trivalent chromium, the less toxic and more common form of the chemical, are 100 ppb and 2,900,000 ppm, respectively. Therefore, no GSI exceedances for trivalent chromium occurred in the April groundwater sampling results (and the only detection for hexavalent chromium did not exceed its
8
GSI). One groundwater sample, taken in July from the Source Area, exceeded the trivalent chromium GSI. (The sampling location for this exceedance was different than the location for the exceedance of the hexavalent chromium GSI, also taken in July.) There were no GSIPC exceedances for trivalent chromium in the July soil samples. GSI exceedances suggest, and the detection of various chemicals in area surface water indicate, that groundwater contamination is discharging to area ponds, Wick’s Creek, and Kalamazoo Lake. Although several metals exceeded their respective GSIs in groundwater samples, the 10-ml/day dose from surface water was well below the corresponding RfD or MRL. The maximum surface water concentrations of cis-1,2-dichloroethylene and tetrachloroethylene exceeded their respective Drinking Water Criteria (DWC). The magnitude of the exceedances was not great (Table 1). (In general, an exceedance of more than 10 times the screening level is cause for concern.) Therefore, these concentrations are not of concern. The maximum surface water concentrations of TCE and vinyl chloride exceeded their respective DWC by about 300 and 20 times, respectively, suggesting the need for further evaluation. The 10-ml/day dose of each chemical did not exceed its respective MRL. However, the MRL listed for TCE is for acute exposure, defined by ATSDR as that which occurs in less than two weeks’ time. (There are no intermediate or chronic MRLs for TCE, and the RfD is currently under review by the EPA.) The degree of exposure to area surface waters is not known and might be greater than two weeks. The likelihood of exposure to surface waters is discussed further in the “Human Exposure Pathways” section. Human Exposure Pathways To determine whether nearby residents are, have been, or are likely to be exposed to contaminants associated with a property, ATSDR and MDCH evaluate the environmental and human components that could lead to human exposure. An exposure pathway contains five major elements: (1) a source of contamination, (2) contaminant transport through an environmental medium, (3) a point of exposure, (4) a route of human exposure, and (5) a receptor population. An exposure pathway is considered complete if all five elements are, have been, or will be present at the property. Alternatively, an exposure pathway is considered complete if probability of exposure is high. A pathway is considered either potential or incomplete if no evidence exists that at least one of the elements above is, has been, or will be present at the property, or if the probability of exposure is low. Table 4 shows the exposure pathways expected for the Miro property:
9
Table 4. Exposure pathways matrix for chemicals of concern on and near the Former Miro Golf Course, Douglas, Michigan. Source Environ-
mental Transport and Media
Chemicals of Concern
Exposure Point
Exposure Route
Exposed Population
Time Status
Past Potential Present Potential
Ground-water
VOCs, metals
Area surface waters
(especially Wick’s Creek)
Dermal, oral,
inhalation
Golfers, recreational
users of local surface
waters
Future Potential
Past Potential Present Potential
Ground-water
VOCs, SVOCs
Water in subsurface excavations
Dermal, oral,
inhalation
Construction or utility workers Future Potential
Past Potential Present Incomplete
Ground-water
VOCs Indoor air Inhalation Current or future
residents living over or near the
plume, employees at Haworth
Future Potential
Past Potential Present Potential
Soil VOCs Water in subsurface excavations
Dermal, oral,
inhalation
Employees at or
construction workers near
Haworth
Future Potential
Past Potential Present Incomplete
Former Chase facility
Soil VOCs Indoor air Inhalation Employees at Haworth
Future Potential NOTE: THE PRESENCE OF AN EXPOSURE PATHWAY IN THIS TABLE DOES NOT IMPLY THAT AN EXPOSURE WOULD BE SUBSTANTIVE OR THAT AN ADVERSE HEALTH EFFECT WOULD OCCUR.
Surface Water Exposure Golfers at Westshore Golf Club, on the northwest corner of Center and Ferry Streets (Figure 2), may enter Wick’s Creek to retrieve golf balls. Children in the Miro area might play in area surface waters, although not on a regular basis. (Families looking for water-based recreational opportunities would more likely go to Lake Michigan, about two miles west of the site.) Sampling sites along Wick’s Creek, starting at the point where the creek starts flowing northward (SW-4 on Figure 2), showed the highest concentrations of VOCs among all surface water samples. Concentrations seen for the ponds and Kalamazoo Lake were of lesser or no concern. Figure 4 is a photograph, taken from Center Street, of the area of Westshore Golf Club where surface water sample SW-4 was taken. It is unlikely that a child would spend much time in Wick’s Creek at this location because the child would be at risk of being hit by a golf ball. A child wanting to play or explore in the creek would likely choose a more secluded, upstream (to the left in the photograph) location, off the golf course. No VOCs were detected in the surface water samples taken upstream of SW-4. Exposure to
10
VOCs in Wick’s Creek is not expected to result in adverse health effects due to the infrequency of expected exposure. Figure 4. Westshore Golf Course, southeast corner, near Center and Ferry Streets, Douglas, Michigan.
Indoor Air Exposure TCE found in the groundwater in the Source Area might volatilize, travel through the soil, and enter the indoor air at the Haworth plant or at residences located in the Source Area. (To be protective, MDCH compared all analytical results for groundwater to the Residential/Commercial I Groundwater Volatilization to Indoor Air Inhalation Criterion [GVIIC]. The Industrial GVIIC for TCE is 97,000 ppb.) Only one sampling location, out of a maximum of 26, exceeded the GVIIC. That location was near the current Haworth plant. Groundwater depth near the plant is about 35 feet (Earth Tech Inc. 2003). The MDEQ criterion assumes that depth to groundwater is 10 feet, meaning that, as depth increases, so should the criterion. The maximum TCE concentration found (23,000 ppb) is less than twice the Residential/Commercial I GVIIC of 15,000 ppb. Because the magnitude of the exceedance is not significant and because a site-specific criterion could be greater than 23,000 ppb, it is unlikely that any vapors currently originating from the TCE in the groundwater would accumulate in indoor air to a degree that would cause health effects. However, future underground construction could lead to preferential pathways along which vapors could easily migrate.
Wick’s Creek
11
The TCE groundwater plume has its highest concentrations at Chase (Figure 3). The concentrations decrease as the plume spreads outward and flows toward its discharge points in area surface waters. No exceedances of the GVIIC or its soil counterpart, the SVIIC, occurred in the Plume Area, suggesting current residents are not being exposed to harmful concentrations of TCE in the indoor air. However, as argued for the Source Area, future underground construction could lead to preferential pathways along which vapors could easily migrate. Vinyl chloride was not detected in subsurface soil samples and the highest groundwater concentration found (560 ppb) was about half the GVIIC of 1,100 ppb. Therefore, there likely is no current exposure via vapor intrusion and health effects via this pathway should not occur. However, as discussed for TCE, future construction activities could result in preferential pathways along which vapors could migrate.
Exposure in Excavations Contaminated groundwater may seep into subsurface excavations at this site. Several semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) as well as TCE exceeded their respective Groundwater Contact Criteria (GCC) in the Source Area. However, the magnitude of these exceedances was not significant (less than 3 times the respective criterion). As well, only one sampling location, out of a maximum of 26, contained all of the exceedances. Utility workers would likely be wearing personal protective equipment when entering subsurface excavations, minimizing exposure. Construction workers might not have appropriate protective gear. However, the duration of their exposure would be less than that of utility workers, who routinely enter sewers and pipes. Therefore, this exposure pathway is not expected to result in adverse health effects. Toxicological Evaluation No significant exposure to the chemicals detected in the surface water, groundwater, and subsurface soil is expected occur. Therefore toxic effects are not expected to occur.
p-Isopropyltoluene p-Isopropyltoluene is a solvent used as a thinner for lacquers and varnishes and as a fragrance. It can be manufactured from toluene or terpenes, and also occurs naturally. It is a clear, colorless liquid with a sweet, aromatic odor. As a liquid, it can irritate the skin and eyes upon contact. It is not an irritant in its vapor form (HSDB 2004). Because contamination was limited (only one sample contained the chemical), it is not likely that the presence of p-isopropyltoluene in the Miro area would cause adverse health effects. ATSDR Child Health Considerations In general, children may be at greater risk than are adults from exposure to hazardous substances at sites of environmental contamination. Children engage in activities such as playing outdoors and hand-to-mouth behaviors that could increase their intake of hazardous substances. They are shorter than are most adults, and therefore breathe dust, soil, and vapors closer to the ground. Their lower body weight and higher intake rate result in a greater dose of hazardous substance per unit of body weight. The developing body systems of children can sustain permanent damage if toxic exposures are high
12
enough during critical growth stages. Even before birth, children are forming the body organs they need to last a lifetime. Injury during key periods of growth and development could lead to malformation of organs (teratogenesis), disruption of function, and premature death. Exposure of the pregnant mother could lead to exposure of the fetus via the placenta, or injury or illness sustained by the mother could affect the fetus (ATSDR 1998). The obvious implication for environmental health is that children can be more susceptible to toxicant exposures in soils, water, or air compared to adults. Although children in the Miro area might play or wade in area surface waters, exposure to any chemicals in the water should be infrequent. Additionally, children likely would not enter Wick’s Creek, the surface water with the highest concentrations of TCE, where the creek runs through the golf course. If children enter the creek, they would probably do so upstream and away from the golf course. VOCs were not detected along this section of the creek. Therefore, children should not experience adverse health effects as a result of entering Wick’s Creek or other surface waters.
Community Health Concerns 1. What is the likelihood that TCE in the groundwater beneath the Miro property
could volatilize into the basements of future homes and present a health hazard to the residents of those homes?
According to the environmental data in the RI, concentrations of TCE in the plume under the former Miro Golf Course, where homes may be built in the future, are below the MDEQ criterion that deals with vapor intrusion (GVIIC). However, EPA is re-evaluating the toxicology data for TCE, which might result in lower criteria in the future. As well, it is possible that subsurface construction activities involving the laying of cable or pipe may lead to the development of preferential pathways along which underground vapors can migrate. Therefore, developers should exercise due care during construction and consider preventative measures, such as installing sub-slab depressurization systems. These systems are used in radon mitigation situations and are increasingly used to address vapor intrusion by VOCs.
2. Does the TCE in the groundwater present a health hazard to neighboring
residents? No. Although part of the TCE plume flows under residential properties north of Haworth, the concentrations are well below those of concern. The plume does not appear to affect properties west of the former Miro Golf Course.
3. Does the TCE-contaminated groundwater discharging to area surface waters
present a health hazard to persons exposed to those waters (e.g., golfers retrieving golfballs, children playing in the water)?
No. Exposure is expected to be insignificant.
13
Conclusions There is no apparent current public health hazard via inhalation of indoor air, however the hazard is indeterminate for the future. It is likely that, due to the depth to groundwater, VOC vapors cannot enter indoor air at Haworth to an extent that would be harmful. Future construction activities in the area near and above the plume, however, could result in preferential vapor pathways leading toward structures. There is no apparent public health hazard posed by incidental ingestion of local surface waters. Exposure is expected to be infrequent and insignificant. As mentioned in the “Purpose and Health Issues” section of this document, the arsenic in soil at the former Miro Golf Course was not addressed by the RI. Nonetheless, arsenic remains a concern. If this area is developed, the arsenic must be addressed, dependent on proposed land use.
Recommendations 1. The contamination of the groundwater, and resulting contamination of area
surface waters, should be addressed, per MDEQ’s mandate to protect the environment.
2. The arsenic contamination in the soil at the former Miro Golf Course should be addressed.
Public Health Action Plan
1. MDEQ will determine appropriate clean-up actions and oversee their implementation.
2. The owner of the former Miro Golf Course will characterize the property soil for arsenic and address the contamination, under MDEQ oversight.
New environmental data or information concerning the future use of this property may require future health consultations. If any citizen has additional information or health concerns regarding this health consultation, please contact the Michigan Department of Community Health, Environmental and Occupational Epidemiology Division, at 1-800-648-6942.
14
Preparers of Report
Michigan Department of Community Health
Christina Bush, Toxicologist
Robin Freer, Resource Specialist
ATSDR Regional Representative
Mark Johnson
Regional Services, Region V Office of the Assistant Administrator
ATSDR Technical Project Officer
Alan Yarbrough Division of Health Assessment and Consultation
Superfund Site Assessment Branch
15
References Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). Public health assessment guidance manual. Atlanta: US Department of Health and Human Services; 2002. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 1998. ATSDR, Division of Health Assessment and Consultation. Guidance on Including Child Health Issues in Division of Health Assessment and Consultation Documents. Atlanta: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). Health consultation regarding the Former Miro Golf Course, Village of Douglas, Allegan County, Michigan. Atlanta: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; 2003 Mar 11. Earth Tech, Inc. Remedial investigation report – Village of Douglas, Douglas, Michigan. Grand Rapids, MI: EarthTech, Inc., prepared for Weston Solutions, Inc.; 2003 Dec. EarthTech Project No. 65766. Hazardous Substances Database (HSDB). 2004. Available at http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/cgi-bin/sis/htmlgen?HSDB Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ). Part 201 Generic Drinking Water Criteria Technical Support Document. Lansing: MDEQ; 2002a. Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ). Part 201 Generic Groundwater Contact Criteria Technical Support Document. Lansing: MDEQ; 2002b. Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ). Part 201 Generic Groundwater and Soil Volatilization to Indoor Air Inhalation Criteria Technical Support Document. Lansing: MDEQ; 2002c. Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ). Part 201 Generic Soil Direct Contact Criteria Technical Support Document. Lansing: MDEQ; 2002d. Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ). Remediation and Redevelopment Division Operational Memorandum No. 5 – Groundwater Surface Water Interface Criteria. Lansing: MDEQ; 2004.
16
Selected Bibliography Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). Drinking water comparison values. Atlanta: US Department of Health and Human Services; 2004. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). Minimal risk values (MRLs) for hazardous substances. Atlanta: US Department of Health and Human Services; 2004. Available at http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/mrls.html Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ). Operational Memorandum No. 18 – Part 201 Generic Clean-up Criteria. Lansing: MDEQ; 2002. Available at http://www.michigan.gov/deq/0,1607,7-135-3311_4109_9846-20527--,00.html U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) database for risk assessment. Washington, D.C.: EPA; 2004. Available at http://www.epa.gov/iris/index.html
Tabl
e 1.
Sur
face
wat
er c
once
ntra
tion
data
for P
lum
e A
rea
at th
e Fo
rmer
Miro
Gol
f Cou
rse,
Dou
glas
, Mic
higa
n.
Che
mic
alN
o. d
etec
tions
/ N
o. s
ampl
esC
once
ntra
tion
rang
eN
o. d
etec
tions
/ N
o. s
ampl
esC
once
ntra
tion
rang
em
axim
um
ug/L
10 m
l/d d
ose
(mg/
kg/d
)R
fD o
r MR
L (m
g/kg
/d)
A, I
, C
DW
C o
r E
ME
G
(ug/
L)
GC
C (n
o.
exce
edan
ces
Apr
il, J
uly)
1,1,
1-Tr
ichl
oroe
than
e4
/ 13
1.1
- 2.9
4 / 1
31.
3 - 1
313
1.3E
-05
NA
200
1,30
0,00
0 (0
,0)
1,1-
Dic
hlor
oeth
ane
2 / 1
31.
1 - 3
.11
/ 13
4.1
3.1
3.1E
-06
2.0E
-01
I88
02,
400,
000
(0,0
)1,
1-D
ichl
oroe
thyl
ene
3 / 1
31.
2 - 1
.90
/ 13
ND
1.9
1.9E
-06
9.0E
-03
C7
11,0
00 (0
,0)
1,2,
4-Tr
imet
hylb
enze
ne0
/ 13
ND
0 / 1
3N
D56
,000
1,2-
Dic
hlor
oeth
ane
0 / 1
3N
D0
/ 13
ND
19,0
001,
3,5-
Trim
ethy
lben
zene
0 / 1
3N
D0
/ 13
ND
61,0
002,
4-D
imet
hylp
heno
lN
T-
NT
-52
0,00
02-
Met
hyln
apht
hale
ne0
/ 13
ND
0 / 1
3N
DID
Ars
enic
4 / 1
31.
1 - 1
.2N
T-
1.2
1.2E
-06
3.0E
-04
C3
4,30
0 (0
,0)
Bar
ium
13 /
1330
- 88
NT
-88
8.8E
-05
7.0E
-02
C70
014
,000
,000
(0,0
)B
enzo
(a)a
nthr
acen
eN
T-
NT
-9.
4B
enzo
(a)p
yren
eN
T-
NT
-2
Ben
zo(b
)fluo
rant
hene
NT
-N
T-
5B
enzo
(g,h
,I)pe
ryle
neN
T-
NT
-5
Ben
zene
0 / 1
3N
D0
/ 13
ND
11,0
00bi
s(2-
Eth
ylhe
xyl)p
htha
late
NT
-N
T-
320
Bro
mod
ichl
orom
etha
ne0
/ 13
ND
0 / 1
3N
D14
,000
But
ylbe
nzyl
pht
hala
teN
T-
NT
-2,
700
Cad
miu
m1
/ 13
0.52
NT
-0.
525.
2E-0
72.
0E-0
4C
219
0,00
0 (0
,0)
Chl
oroe
than
e0
/ 13
ND
0 / 1
3N
D44
0,00
0C
hlor
ofor
m0
/ 13
ND
0 / 1
3N
D15
0,00
0C
hlor
omet
hane
2 / 1
31.
2 - 1
.40
/ 13
ND
1.4
1.4E
-06
NA
260
490,
000
(0,0
)C
hrom
ium
0 / 1
3N
DN
T-
460,
000
Chr
ysen
eN
T-
NT
-5
cis-
1,2-
Dic
hlor
oeth
ylen
e7
/ 13
1.8
- 89
7 / 1
31.
2 - 3
5035
03.
5E-0
4N
A70
200,
000
(0,0
)C
oppe
r1
/ 13
11N
T-
111.
1E-0
52.
0E-0
2A
,I20
07,
400,
000
(0,0
)D
ibro
moc
hlor
omet
hane
0 / 1
3N
D0
/ 13
ND
18,0
00D
i-n-b
utyl
pht
hala
teN
T-
NT
-11
,000
Eth
ylbe
nzen
e0
/ 13
ND
0 / 1
3N
D17
0,00
0Fl
uora
nthe
neN
T-
NT
-21
0H
exav
alen
t chr
omiu
m0
/ 13
ND
NT
-46
0,00
0In
deno
(1,2
,3-c
d)py
rene
NT
-N
T-
2Is
opro
pylb
enze
ne0
/ 13
ND
0 / 1
3N
D56
,000
Lead
0 / 1
3N
DN
T-
IDM
anga
nese
0 / 1
3N
DN
T-
9,10
0,00
0M
ercu
ry0
/ 13
ND
NT
-56
Apr
il 20
03 s
ampl
ing
July
200
3 sa
mpl
ing
Tabl
e 1.
Sur
face
wat
er c
once
ntra
tion
data
for P
lum
e A
rea
at th
e Fo
rmer
Miro
Gol
f Cou
rse,
Dou
glas
, Mic
higa
n.
Che
mic
alN
o. d
etec
tions
/ N
o. s
ampl
esC
once
ntra
tion
rang
eN
o. d
etec
tions
/ N
o. s
ampl
esC
once
ntra
tion
rang
em
axim
um
ug/L
10 m
l/d d
ose
(mg/
kg/d
)R
fD o
r MR
L (m
g/kg
/d)
A, I
, C
DW
C o
r E
ME
G
(ug/
L)
GC
C (n
o.
exce
edan
ces
Apr
il, J
uly)
Apr
il 20
03 s
ampl
ing
July
200
3 sa
mpl
ing
Met
hyle
ne c
hlor
ide
0 / 1
3N
D0
/ 13
ND
220,
000
Nap
thal
ene
0 / 1
3N
D0
/ 13
ND
31,0
00n-
But
ylbe
nzen
e0
/ 13
ND
0 / 1
3N
D5,
900
Nic
kel
0 / 1
3N
DN
T-
74,0
00,0
00n-
Pro
pylb
enze
ne0
/ 13
ND
0 / 1
3N
D15
,000
Phe
nant
hren
eN
T-
NT
-1,
000
Pyr
ene
NT
-N
T-
140
sec-
But
ylbe
nzen
e0
/ 13
ND
0 / 1
3N
D4,
400
Sel
eniu
m0
/ 13
ND
NT
-97
0,00
0S
tyre
ne0
/ 13
ND
0 / 1
3N
D9,
700
Tetr
achl
oroe
thyl
ene
2 / 1
31
- 1.2
1 / 1
35.
75.
75.
7E-0
61.
0E-0
2C
512
,000
(0,0
)To
luen
e0
/ 13
ND
0 / 1
3N
D53
0,00
0tr
ans-
1,2-
Dic
hlor
oeth
ylen
e2
/ 13
1.1
- 1.4
0 / 1
3N
D1.
41.
4E-0
62.
0E-0
2C
100
220,
000
(0,0
)Tr
ichl
oroe
thyl
ene
7 / 1
31.
9 - 3
208
/ 13
1.1
- 1,6
001,
600
1.6E
-03
2.0E
-01
A5
22,0
00 (0
,0)
Viny
l chl
orid
e4
/ 13
3.1
- 12
4 / 1
32.
2 - 3
737
3.7E
-05
3.0E
-04
C2
1,00
0 (0
,0)
Xyl
enes
0 / 1
3N
D0
/ 13
ND
190,
000
Zinc
0 / 1
3N
DN
T-
110,
000,
000
Acr
onym
s/A
bbre
viat
ions
:A
,I,C
acut
e, in
term
edia
te, o
r chr
onic
exp
osur
eD
WC
Drin
king
Wat
er C
riter
iaE
ME
GE
nviro
nmen
tal M
edia
Eva
luat
ion
Gui
deG
CC
Gro
undw
ater
Con
tact
Crit
eria
IDin
suffi
cien
t dat
a to
det
erm
ine
crite
rion
MR
LM
inim
al R
isk
Val
ueN
Ano
t ava
ilabl
eN
Dno
t det
ecte
dN
Tno
t tes
ted
in th
is m
ediu
m fo
r thi
s da
teR
fDR
efer
ence
Dos
e
Not
es:
1. A
ll co
ncen
tratio
ns in
ppb
(ug/
L) u
nles
s ot
herw
ise
note
d.2.
All
chem
ical
s lis
ted
wer
e de
tect
ed in
at l
east
one
env
ironm
enta
l med
ium
. C
hem
ical
s in
bol
d w
ere
dete
cted
in s
urfa
ce w
ater
. S
hade
d ch
emic
als
had
dete
ctio
ns g
reat
er th
an
scre
enin
g le
vels
(exc
eeda
nces
).3.
Chr
omiu
m c
riter
ia s
how
n ar
e fo
r the
hex
aval
ent f
orm
. Th
ese
crite
ria a
re m
ore
prot
ectiv
e th
an th
ose
for t
he tr
ival
ent f
orm
.
Tabl
e 2a
. G
roun
dwat
er c
once
ntra
tion
data
for P
lum
e A
rea
at th
e Fo
rmer
Miro
Gol
f Cou
rse,
Dou
glas
, Mic
higa
n.
Che
mic
alN
o. d
etec
tions
/ N
o. s
ampl
esC
once
ntra
tion
rang
eN
o. d
etec
tions
/ N
o. s
ampl
esC
once
ntra
tion
rang
e
GS
I (no
. ex
ceed
ance
s A
pril,
Jul
y)
GC
C (n
o.
exce
edan
ces
Apr
il,
July
)
R/C
GV
IIC (n
o.
exce
edan
ces
Apr
il, J
uly)
1,1,
1-Tr
ichl
oroe
than
e14
/ 51
1.3
- 59
3 / 4
22.
9 - 6
220
0 (0
,0)
1,30
0,00
0 (0
,0)
660,
000
(0,0
)1,
1-D
ichl
oroe
than
e18
/ 51
1.2
- 150
4 / 4
21
- 6.3
740
(0,0
)2,
400,
000
(0,0
)1,
000,
000
(0,0
)1,
1-D
ichl
oroe
thyl
ene
16 /
511.
2 - 1
100
/ 42
ND
65 (3
,0)
11,0
00 (0
,0)
200
(0,0
)1,
2,4-
Trim
ethy
lben
zene
0 / 5
1N
D0
/ 42
ND
1756
,000
56,0
001,
2-D
ichl
oroe
than
e0
/ 51
ND
0 / 4
2N
D36
019
,000
9,60
01,
3,5-
Trim
ethy
lben
zene
0 / 5
1N
D0
/ 42
ND
4561
,000
61,0
002,
4-D
imet
hylp
heno
lN
T-
0 / 1
ND
380
520,
000
NLV
2-M
ethy
lnap
htha
lene
0 / 5
1N
D0
/ 42
ND
IDID
25,0
00A
rsen
ic26
/ 40
1.3
- 78
1 / 1
6.2
150
(0,0
)4,
300
(0,0
)N
LVB
ariu
m39
/ 40
12 -
2,40
01
/ 118
067
0 (1
,0)
14,0
00,0
00 (0
,0)
NLV
Ben
zo(a
)ant
hrac
ene
NT
-0
/ 1N
DID
9.4
NLV
Ben
zo(a
)pyr
ene
NT
-0
/ 1N
DID
2N
LVB
enzo
(b)fl
uora
nthe
neN
T-
0 / 1
ND
NA
5N
LVB
enzo
(g,h
,I)pe
ryle
neN
T-
0 / 1
ND
NA
5N
LVB
enze
ne4
/ 51
1.4
- 2.1
0 / 4
2N
D20
0 (0
,0)
11,0
00 (0
,0)
5,60
0 (0
,0)
bis(
2-E
thyl
hexy
l)pht
hala
teN
T-
0 / 1
ND
3232
0N
LVB
rom
odic
hlor
omet
hane
0 / 5
1N
D2
/ 42
2 - 2
.5ID
14,0
00 (0
,0)
4,80
0 (0
,0)
But
ylbe
nzyl
pht
hala
teN
T-
0 / 1
ND
142,
700
NLV
Cad
miu
m6
/ 40
0.61
- 17
00
/ 11
ND
3 (2
,0)
190,
000
(0,0
)N
LVC
hlor
oeth
ane
0 / 5
1N
D0
/ 42
ND
ID44
0,00
05,
700,
000
Chl
orof
orm
4 / 5
11.
3 - 2
.82
/ 42
7.8
- 8.8
170
(0,0
)15
0,00
0 (0
,0)
28,0
00 (0
,0)
Chl
orom
etha
ne4
/ 51
1 - 2
.60
/ 42
ND
ID49
0,00
08,
600
Chr
omiu
m11
/ 40
7.3
- 90
0 / 1
ND
11 (9
,0)
460,
000
(0,0
)N
LVC
hrys
ene
NT
-0
/ 1N
DID
5ID
cis-
1,2-
Dic
hlor
oeth
ylen
e33
/ 51
1.5
- 35,
000
12 /
421.
9 - 1
,800
620
(9,2
)20
0,00
0 (0
,0)
93,0
00 (0
,0)
Cop
per
7 / 4
011
- 88
0 / 1
ND
13 (4
,0)
7,40
0,00
0 (0
,0)
NLV
Dib
rom
ochl
orom
etha
ne0
/ 51
ND
2 / 4
21.
1ID
18,0
00 (0
,0)
14,0
00 (0
,0)
Di-n
-but
yl p
htha
late
NT
-0
/ 1N
D9.
711
,000
NLV
Eth
ylbe
nzen
e0
/ 51
ND
0 / 4
2N
D18
170,
000
110,
000
Fluo
rant
hene
NT
-0
/ 1N
D5
210
210
Hex
aval
ent c
hrom
ium
1 / 4
09
0 / 1
ND
11 (0
,0)
460,
000
(0,0
)N
LVIn
deno
(1,2
,3-c
d)py
rene
NT
-0
/ 1N
DID
2N
LVIs
opro
pylb
enze
ne0
/ 51
ND
0 / 4
2N
DID
56,0
0056
,000
Lead
9 / 4
03.
3 - 6
91
/ 13.
516
(3,0
)ID
NLV
Man
gane
se16
/ 40
73 -
33,0
001
/ 197
2,80
0 (2
,0)
9,10
0,00
0 (0
,0)
NLV
Mer
cury
1 / 4
08.
40
/ 1N
D0.
0013
(1,0
)56
(0,0
)56
(0,0
)
Apr
il 20
03 s
ampl
ing
July
200
3 sa
mpl
ing
Tabl
e 2a
. G
roun
dwat
er c
once
ntra
tion
data
for P
lum
e A
rea
at th
e Fo
rmer
Miro
Gol
f Cou
rse,
Dou
glas
, Mic
higa
n.
Che
mic
alN
o. d
etec
tions
/ N
o. s
ampl
esC
once
ntra
tion
rang
eN
o. d
etec
tions
/ N
o. s
ampl
esC
once
ntra
tion
rang
e
GS
I (no
. ex
ceed
ance
s A
pril,
Jul
y)
GC
C (n
o.
exce
edan
ces
Apr
il,
July
)
R/C
GV
IIC (n
o.
exce
edan
ces
Apr
il, J
uly)
Apr
il 20
03 s
ampl
ing
July
200
3 sa
mpl
ing
Met
hyle
ne c
hlor
ide
1 / 5
18
0 / 4
2N
D94
022
0,00
022
0,00
0N
apth
alen
e0
/ 51
ND
0 / 4
2N
D13
31,0
0031
,000
n-B
utyl
benz
ene
0 / 5
1N
D0
/ 42
ND
ID5,
900
IDN
icke
l5
/ 40
30 -
390
0 / 1
ND
73 (3
,0)
74,0
00,0
00 (0
,0)
NLV
n-P
ropy
lben
zene
0 / 5
1N
D0
/ 42
ND
ID15
,000
IDP
hena
nthr
ene
NT
-0
/ 1N
D5
1,00
01,
000
Pyr
ene
NT
-0
/ 1N
DID
140
140
sec-
But
ylbe
nzen
e0
/ 51
ND
0 / 4
2N
DID
4,40
0ID
Sele
nium
1 / 4
04.
50
/ 1N
D5
(0,0
)97
0,00
0 (0
,0)
NLV
Sty
rene
0 / 5
1N
D0
/ 42
ND
809,
700
170,
000
Tetr
achl
oroe
thyl
ene
13 /
511.
3 - 2
31
/ 42
2.9
45 (0
,0)
12,0
00 (0
,0)
25,0
00 (0
,0)
Tolu
ene
8 / 5
11.
2 - 9
.80
/ 42
ND
140
(0,0
)53
0,00
0 (0
,0)
530,
000
(0,0
)tr
ans-
1,2-
Dic
hlor
oeth
ylen
e24
/ 51
1.2
- 4,2
001
/ 42
11,
500
(4,0
)22
0,00
0 (0
,0)
85,0
00 (0
,0)
Tric
hlor
oeth
ylen
e34
/ 51
1.4
- 9,3
0021
/ 42
1.1
- 9,9
0020
0 (1
6,6)
22,0
00 (0
,0)
15,0
00 (0
,0)
Viny
l chl
orid
e15
/ 51
2.8
- 560
2 / 4
21.
2 - 3
.315
(8,0
)1,
000
(0,0
)1,
100
(0,0
)X
ylen
es0
/ 51
ND
0 / 4
2N
D35
(0,0
)19
0,00
0 (0
,0)
190,
000
(0,0
)Zi
nc24
/ 40
13 -
1,50
01
/ 167
017
0 (9
,6)
110,
000,
000
(0,0
)N
LV
Acr
onym
s/A
bbre
viat
ions
:G
CC
Gro
undw
ater
Con
tact
Crit
eria
GS
IG
roun
dwat
er S
urfa
ce W
ater
Inte
rface
Crit
eria
IDin
suffi
cien
t dat
a to
det
erm
ine
crite
rion
NA
not a
vaila
ble
ND
not d
etec
ted
NLL
no
t lik
ely
to le
ach
NLV
not l
ikel
y to
vol
atili
zeN
Tno
t tes
ted
for i
n th
is m
edia
on
this
dat
eR
/C G
VIIC
Res
iden
tial a
nd C
omm
erci
al I
Gro
undw
ater
Vol
atili
zatio
n to
Indo
or A
ir In
hala
tion
Crit
eria
Not
es:
1. A
ll co
ncen
tratio
ns in
ppb
(ug/
L).
2. A
ll ch
emic
als
liste
d w
ere
dete
cted
in a
t lea
st o
ne e
nviro
nmen
tal m
ediu
m.
Che
mic
als
in b
old
wer
e de
tect
ed in
gro
undw
ater
. S
hade
d ch
emic
als
had
dete
ctio
ns
grea
ter t
han
scre
enin
g le
vels
(exc
eeda
nces
).3.
Chr
omiu
m c
riter
ia s
how
n ar
e fo
r the
hex
aval
ent f
orm
. Th
ese
crite
ria a
re m
ore
prot
ectiv
e th
an th
ose
for t
he tr
ival
ent f
orm
.
Tabl
e 2b
. G
roun
dwat
er c
once
ntra
tion
data
for S
ourc
e A
rea
at th
e Fo
rmer
Miro
Gol
f Cou
rse,
Dou
glas
, Mic
higa
n.
Che
mic
alN
o. d
etec
tions
/ N
o. s
ampl
esC
once
ntra
tion
rang
eN
o. d
etec
tions
/ N
o. s
ampl
esC
once
ntra
tion
rang
e
GS
I (no
. ex
ceed
ance
s A
pril,
Jul
y)
GC
C (n
o.
exce
edan
ces
Apr
il,
July
)
R/C
GV
IIC (n
o.
exce
edan
ces
Apr
il, J
uly)
1,1,
1-Tr
ichl
oroe
than
e3
/ 12
7.3
- 78
5 / 2
62.
9 - 2
1020
0 (0
,1)
1,30
0,00
0 (0
,0)
660,
000
(0,0
)1,
1-D
ichl
oroe
than
e3
/ 12
1.9
- 61
2 / 2
611
- 16
074
0 (0
,0)
2,40
0,00
0 (0
,0)
1,00
0,00
0 (0
,0)
1,1-
Dic
hlor
oeth
ylen
e3
/ 12
13 -
153
/ 26
2.9
- 94
65 (0
,1)
11,0
00 (0
,0)
200
(0,0
)1,
2,4-
Trim
ethy
lben
zene
0 / 1
2N
D4
/ 26
1.1
- 1,0
0017
(0,2
)56
,000
(0,0
)56
,000
(0,0
)1,
2-D
ichl
oroe
than
e0
/ 12
ND
1 / 2
61.
836
0 (0
,0)
19,0
00 (0
,0)
9,60
0 (0
,0)
1,3,
5-Tr
imet
hylb
enze
ne0
/ 12
ND
3 / 2
63.
5 - 2
6045
(0,1
)61
,000
(0,0
)61
,000
(0,0
)2,
4-D
imet
hylp
heno
l0
/ 10
ND
1 / 1
462
380
(0,0
)52
0,00
0 (0
,0)
NLV
2-M
ethy
lnap
htha
lene
0 / 1
2N
D1
/ 26
85ID
ID25
,000
(0,0
)A
rsen
ic8
/ 12
1.4
- 22
12 /
142.
1 - 6
415
0 (0
,0)
4,30
0 (0
,0)
NLV
Bar
ium
11 /
1222
- 22
014
/ 14
18 -
1,50
067
0 (0
,1)
14,0
00,0
00 (0
,0)
NLV
Ben
zo(a
)ant
hrac
ene
1 / 1
03.
40
/ 14
ND
ID9.
4 (0
,0)
NLV
Ben
zo(a
)pyr
ene
1 / 1
05.
20
/ 14
ND
ID2
(1,0
)N
LVB
enzo
(b)fl
uora
nthe
ne1
/ 10
8.8
0 / 1
4N
DN
A5
(1,0
)N
LVB
enzo
(g,h
,I)pe
ryle
ne0
/ 10
ND
0 / 1
4N
DN
A5
NLV
Ben
zene
0 / 1
2N
D0
/ 26
ND
200
11,0
005,
600
bis(
2-Et
hylh
exyl
)pht
hala
te2
/ 10
9.7
- 12
0 / 1
4N
D32
(0,0
)32
0 (0
,0)
NLV
Bro
mod
ichl
orom
etha
ne0
/ 12
ND
3 / 2
61.
4 - 2
.3ID
14,0
00 (0
,0)
4,80
0 (0
,0)
But
ylbe
nzyl
pht
hala
te0
/ 10
ND
0 / 1
4N
D14
2,70
0N
LVC
adm
ium
2 / 1
21.
1 - 3
.55
/ 14
0.47
- 8.
43
(1,2
)19
0,00
0 (0
,0)
NLV
Chl
oroe
than
e1
/ 12
160
/ 26
ND
ID44
0,00
0 (0
,0)
5,70
0,00
0 (0
,0)
Chl
orof
orm
1 / 1
21.
73
/ 26
5.1
- 8.7
170
(0,0
)15
0,00
0 (0
,0)
28,0
00 (0
,0)
Chl
orom
etha
ne0
/ 12
ND
0 / 2
6N
DID
490,
000
8,60
0C
hrom
ium
4 / 1
211
- 29
7 / 1
46.
8 - 4
1011
(4,5
)46
0,00
0 (0
,0)
NLV
Chr
ysen
e0
/ 10
ND
0 / 1
4N
DID
5ID
cis-
1,2-
Dic
hlor
oeth
ylen
e9
/ 12
2.8
- 2,3
0017
/ 26
1.1
- 1,1
0062
0 (2
,2)
200,
000
(0,0
)93
,000
(0,0
)C
oppe
r1
/ 12
326
/ 14
3.5
- 330
13 (1
,2)
7,40
0,00
0 (0
,0)
NLV
Dib
rom
ochl
orom
etha
ne0
/ 12
ND
1 / 2
61.
2ID
18,0
00 (0
,0)
14,0
00 (0
,0)
Di-n
-but
yl p
htha
late
0 / 1
0N
D0
/ 14
ND
9.7
11,0
00N
LVEt
hylb
enze
ne0
/ 12
ND
4 / 2
61.
2 - 6
2018
(0,3
)17
0,00
0 (0
,0)
110,
000
(0,0
)Fl
uora
nthe
ne1
/ 10
130
/ 14
ND
5 (1
,0)
210
(0,0
)21
0 (0
,0)
Hex
aval
ent c
hrom
ium
0 / 1
2N
D3
/ 10
8 - 3
311
(0,1
)46
0,00
0 (0
,0)
NLV
Inde
no(1
,2,3
-cd)
pyre
ne1
/ 10
50
/ 14
ND
ID2
(1,0
)N
LVIs
opro
pylb
enze
ne0
/ 12
ND
2 / 2
61.
8 - 4
8ID
56,0
00 (0
,0)
56,0
00 (0
,0)
Lead
4 / 1
23.
1 - 2
76
/ 14
2.8
-160
16 (2
,4)
IDN
LVM
anga
nese
6 / 1
249
- 7,
700
14 /
1461
- 21
,000
2,80
0 (1
,2)
9,10
0,00
0N
LVM
ercu
ry0
/ 12
ND
0 / 1
4N
D0.
0013
5656
Apr
il 20
03 s
ampl
ing
July
200
3 sa
mpl
ing
Tabl
e 2b
. G
roun
dwat
er c
once
ntra
tion
data
for S
ourc
e A
rea
at th
e Fo
rmer
Miro
Gol
f Cou
rse,
Dou
glas
, Mic
higa
n.
Che
mic
alN
o. d
etec
tions
/ N
o. s
ampl
esC
once
ntra
tion
rang
eN
o. d
etec
tions
/ N
o. s
ampl
esC
once
ntra
tion
rang
e
GS
I (no
. ex
ceed
ance
s A
pril,
Jul
y)
GC
C (n
o.
exce
edan
ces
Apr
il,
July
)
R/C
GV
IIC (n
o.
exce
edan
ces
Apr
il, J
uly)
Apr
il 20
03 s
ampl
ing
July
200
3 sa
mpl
ing
Met
hyle
ne c
hlor
ide
0 / 1
2N
D0
/ 26
ND
940
220,
000
220,
000
Nap
thal
ene
0 / 1
2N
D2
/ 26
7.8
- 190
13 (0
,1)
31,0
00 (0
,0)
31,0
00 (0
,0)
n-B
utyl
benz
ene
0 / 1
2N
D0
/ 26
ND
ID5,
900
IDN
icke
l3
/ 12
25 -
475
/ 14
6.3
- 430
73 (0
,4)
74,0
00,0
00 (0
,0)
NLV
n-Pr
opyl
benz
ene
0 / 1
2N
D3
/ 26
2.7
- 140
ID15
,000
(0,0
)ID
Phe
nant
hren
e0
/ 10
ND
0 / 1
4N
D5
1,00
01,
000
Pyr
ene
0 / 1
0N
D0
/ 14
ND
ID14
014
0se
c-B
utyl
benz
ene
0 / 1
2N
D1
/ 26
8.5
ID4,
400
(0,0
)ID
Sele
nium
0 / 1
2N
D1
/ 14
2.9
5 (0
,0)
970,
000
(0,0
)N
LVSt
yren
e0
/ 12
ND
1 / 2
61.
380
(0,0
)9,
700
(0,0
)17
0,00
0 (0
,0)
Tetr
achl
oroe
thyl
ene
5 / 1
21
- 8.9
4 / 2
61.
5 - 1
1045
(0,1
)12
,000
(0,0
)25
,000
(0,0
)To
luen
e1
/ 12
144
/ 26
1.9
- 8.1
140
(0,0
)53
0,00
0 (0
,0)
530,
000
(0,0
)tr
ans-
1,2-
Dic
hlor
oeth
ylen
e6
/ 12
2.6
- 450
2 / 2
61.
3 - 2
001,
500
(0,0
)22
0,00
0 (0
,0)
85,0
00 (0
,0)
Tric
hlor
oeth
ylen
e9
/ 12
53 -
17,0
0020
/ 26
1.4
- 23,
000
200
(6,9
)22
,000
(0,1
)15
,000
(1,1
)Vi
nyl c
hlor
ide
3 / 1
22.
9 - 1
102
/ 26
1.9
- 23
15 (1
,1)
1,00
0 (0
,0)
1,10
0 (0
,0)
Xyle
nes
0 / 1
2N
D4
/ 26
3.9
- 1,5
7035
(0,3
)19
0,00
0 (0
,0)
190,
000
(0,0
)Zi
nc11
/ 12
10 -
1,40
013
/ 14
440
- 6,5
0017
0 (3
,9)
110,
000,
000
(0,0
)N
LV
Acr
onym
s/A
bbre
viat
ions
:G
SI
Gro
undw
ater
Sur
face
Wat
er In
terfa
ce C
riter
iaG
CC
Gro
undw
ater
Con
tact
Crit
eria
IDin
suffi
cien
t dat
a to
det
erm
ine
crite
rion
NA
not a
vaila
ble
ND
not d
etec
ted
NLL
no
t lik
ely
to le
ach
NLV
not l
ikel
y to
vol
atili
zeR
/C G
VIIC
Res
iden
tial a
nd C
omm
erci
al I
Gro
undw
ater
Vol
atili
zatio
n to
Indo
or A
ir In
hala
tion
Crit
eria
Not
es:
1. A
ll co
ncen
tratio
n in
ppb
(ug/
L).
2. A
ll ch
emic
als
liste
d w
ere
dete
cted
in a
t lea
st o
ne e
nviro
nmen
tal m
ediu
m.
Che
mic
als
in b
old
wer
e de
tect
ed in
gro
undw
ater
. S
hade
d ch
emic
als
had
dete
ctio
ns g
reat
er th
an s
cree
ning
leve
ls (e
xcee
danc
es).
3. C
hrom
ium
crit
eria
sho
wn
are
for t
he h
exav
alen
t for
m.
Thes
e cr
iteria
are
mor
e pr
otec
tive
than
thos
e fo
r the
triv
alen
t for
m.
ChemicalNo. detections /
No. samplesConcentration
rangeR/C DCC (no. exceedances)
GSIPC (no. exceedances)
GCPC (no. exceedances)
R/C SVIIC (no. exceedances)
1,1,1-Trichloroethane 0 / 3 ND 460 4 460 2501,1-Dichloroethane 0 / 3 ND 890 15 890 2301,1-Dichloroethylene 0 / 3 ND 200 1.3 220 0.0621,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 0 / 3 ND 110 0.57 110 1101,2-Dichloroethane 0 / 3 ND 91 7.2 380 2.11,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 0 / 3 ND 94 1.1 94 942,4-Dimethylphenol NT - 11,000 7.6 10,000 NLV2-Methylnaphthalene 0 / 3 ND 8,100 ID 5,500 IDArsenic 3 / 3 0.84 - 1.5 7.6 (0) 70 (0) 2,000 (0) NLVBarium 3 / 3 5.4 - 14 37,000 (0) 440 (0) 1,000,000 (0) NLVBenzo(a)anthracene NT - 20 NLL NLL NLVBenzo(a)pyrene NT - 2 NLL NLL NLVBenzo(b)fluoranthene NT - 20 NLL NLL NLVBenzo(g,h,I)perylene NT - 2,500 NLL NLL NLVBenzene 0 / 3 ND 180 4 220 1.6bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate NT - 2,800 NLL NLL NLVBromodichloromethane 0 / 3 ND 110 ID 280 1.2Butylbenzyl phthalate NT - 310 26 310 NLVCadmium 3 / 3 0.05 - 0.092 550 (0) 3.6 (0) 230,000 (0) NLVChloroethane 0 / 3 ND 950 ID 950 950Chloroform 0 / 3 ND 1,200 3.4 1,500 7.2Chloromethane 0 / 3 ND 1,100 ID 1,100 2.3Chromium 3 / 3 2.6 - 3.6 2,500 (0) 3.3 (2) 140,000 (0) NLVChrysene NT - 2,000 NLL NLL NLVcis-1,2-Dichloroethylene 0 / 3 ND 640 12 640 22Copper 3 / 3 1.3 - 2.3 20,000 (0) 75 (0) 1,000,000 (0) NLVDibromochloromethane 0 / 3 ND 110 ID 360 3.9Di-n-butyl phthalate NT - 760 11 760 NLVEthylbenzene 0 / 3 ND 140 0.36 1.4 87Fluoranthene NT - 46,000 5.5 730 1,000,000Hexavalent chromium 0 / 3 ND 2,500 3.3 140,000 NLVIndeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene NT - 20 NLL NLL NLVIsopropylbenzene 0 / 3 ND 390 ID 390 390Lead 3 / 3 2.7 - 3.6 400 (0) 2,800 (0) ID NLVManganese 3 / 3 31 - 64 25,000 (0) 440 (0) 180,000 (0) NLVMercury 3 / 3 0.025 - 0.042 160 (0) 0.13 (0) 47 (0) 48 (0)Methylene chloride 3 / 3 0.37 - 0.46 1,300 (0) 19 (0) 2,300 (0) 45 (0)Napthalene 0 / 3 ND 16,000 0.87 2,100 250n-Butylbenzene 0 / 3 ND 2,500 ID 120 IDNickel 3 / 3 1.7 - 2.5 40,000 (0) 76 (0) 1,000,000 (0) NLVn-Propylbenzene 0 / 3 ND 2,500 NA 300 IDPhenanthrene NT - 1,600 5.3 1,100 2,800Pyrene NT - 29,000 ID 480 1,000,000sec-Butylbenzene 0 / 3 ND 2,500 ID 88 IDSelenium 0 / 3 ND 2,600 0.41 78,000 NLVStyrene 0 / 3 ND 400 2.2 270 250Tetrachloroethylene 0 / 3 ND 88 0.9 88 11Toluene 0 / 3 ND 250 2.8 250 2,800trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene 0 / 3 ND 1,400 30 1,400 23Trichloroethylene 0 / 3 ND 500 4 440 7.1Vinyl chloride 0 / 3 ND 3.8 0.3 20 0.27Xylenes 0 / 3 ND 150 0.7 150 150Zinc 3 / 3 8.9 - 17 170,000 (0) 170 (0) 1,000,000 (0) NLV
April 2003 sampling
Table 3a. Subsurface soil concentration data for Plume Area at the Former Miro Golf Course, Douglas, Michigan.
Table 3a. Subsurface soil concentration data for Plume Area at the Former Miro Golf Course, Douglas, Michigan.Acronyms/Abbreviations:GCPC Groundwater Contact Protection CriteriaGSIPC Groundwater Surface Water Interface Protection CriteriaID insufficient data to determine criterionNA not availableND not detectedNLL not likely to leachNLV not likely to volatilizeNT not tested for in this medium on this dateR/C DCC Residential and Commercial I Direct Contact CriteriaR/C SVIIC Residential and Commercia I Soil Volatilization to Indoor Air Inhalation Criteria
Notes:1. All concentrations in ppm (mg/kg).
Reference:EarthTech, Inc. 2003
2. All chemicals listed were detected in at least one environmental medium. Chemicals in bold were detected in groundwater. Shaded chemicals had detections greater than screening levels (exceedances).3. Chromium criteria shown are for the hexavalent form. These criteria are more protective than those for the trivalent form.
ChemicalNo. detections /
No. samplesConcentration
rangeR/C DCC (no. exceedances)
GSIPC (no. exceedances)
GCPC (no. exceedances)
R/C SVIIC (no. exceedances)
1,1,1-Trichloroethane 0 / 16 ND 460 4 460 2501,1-Dichloroethane 0 / 16 ND 890 15 890 2301,1-Dichloroethylene 0 / 16 ND 200 1.3 220 0.0621,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 2 / 16 0.074 - 0.24 110 (0) 0.57 (0) 110 (0) 110 (0)1,2-Dichloroethane 0 / 16 ND 91 7.2 380 2.11,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 1 / 16 0.091 94 (0) 1.1 (0) 94 (0) 94 (0)2,4-Dimethylphenol 1 / 16 0.93 11,000 (0) 7.6 (0) 10,000 (0) NLV2-Methylnaphthalene 1 / 16 0.35 8,100 (0) ID 5,500 (0) IDArsenic 16 / 16 0.6 - 4.8 7.6 (0) 70 (0) 2,000 (0) NLVBarium 16 / 16 2.7 - 770 37,000 (0) 440 (1) 1,000,000 (0) NLVBenzo(a)anthracene 1 / 16 0.3 20 NLL NLL NLVBenzo(a)pyrene 0 / 16 ND 2 NLL NLL NLVBenzo(b)fluoranthene 0 / 16 ND 20 NLL NLL NLVBenzo(g,h,I)perylene 1 / 16 0.45 2,500 (0) NLL NLL NLVBenzene 0 / 16 ND 180 4 220 1.6bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate 3 / 16 0.3 - 4.0 2,800 (0) NLL NLL NLVBromodichloromethane 0 / 16 ND 110 ID 280 1.2Butylbenzyl phthalate 1 / 16 0.36 310 (0) 26 (0) 310 (0) NLVCadmium 1 / 16 7.4 550 (0) 3.6 (1) 23,000 (0) NLVChloroethane 0 / 16 ND 950 ID 950 950Chloroform 0 / 16 ND 1,200 3.4 1,500 7.2Chloromethane 0 / 16 ND 1,100 ID 1,100 2.3Chromium 12 / 16 2.6 - 210 2,500 (0) 3.3 (9) 14,000 (0) NLVChrysene 1 / 16 0.53 2,000 (0) NLL NLL NLVcis-1,2-Dichloroethylene 0 / 16 ND 640 12 640 22Copper 14 / 16 2.2 - 54 20,000 (0) 75 (0) 1,000,000 (0) NLVDibromochloromethane 0 / 16 ND 110 ID 360 3.9Di-n-butyl phthalate 1 / 16 0.16 760 (0) 11 (0) 760 (0) NLVEthylbenzene 1 / 16 0.16 140 (0) 0.36 (0) 140 (0) 87 (0)Fluoranthene 3 / 16 0.18 - 2.4 46,000 (0) 5.5 (0) 730 (0) 1,000,000 (0)Hexavalent chromium 1 / 16 0.93 2,500 (0) 3.3 (0) 140,000 (0) NLVIndeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 1 / 16 0.43 20 (0) NLL NLL NLVIsopropylbenzene 0 / 16 ND 390 ID 390 390Lead 4 / 16 5. 1 - 120 400 (0) 2,800 (0) ID NLVManganese 16 / 16 26 - 210 25,000 (0) 440 (0) 180,000 (0) NLVMercury 0 / 16 ND 160 0.13 47 48Methylene chloride 0 / 16 ND 1,300 19 2,300 45Napthalene 0 / 16 ND 16,000 0.87 2,100 250n-Butylbenzene 2 / 16 0.091-0.1 2,500 (0) ID 120 (0) IDNickel 5 / 16 5 - 130 40,000 (0) 76 (1) 1,000,000 (0) NLVn-Propylbenzene 0 / 16 ND 2,500 NA 300 IDPhenanthrene 4 / 16 0.13 - 1.6 1,600 (0) 5.3 (0) 1,100 (0) 2,800 (0)Pyrene 2 / 16 0.14 - 2.0 29,000 (0) ID 480 (0) 1,000,000 (0)sec-Butylbenzene 0 / 16 ND 2,500 ID 88 IDSelenium 0 / 16 ND 2,600 0.41 78,000 NLVStyrene 0 / 16 ND 400 2.2 270 250Tetrachloroethylene 0 / 16 ND 88 0.9 88 11Toluene 0 / 16 ND 250 2.8 250 2,800trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene 0 / 16 ND 1,400 30 1,400 23Trichloroethylene 5 / 16 0.075 - 0.6 500 (0) 4 (0) 440 (0) 7.1 (0)Vinyl chloride 0 / 16 ND 3.8 0.3 20 0.27Xylenes 1 / 16 0.85 150 (0) 0.7 (1) 150 (0) 150 (0)Zinc 13 / 16 5.1 - 6,500 170,000 (0) 170 (3) 1,000,000 (0) NLV
July 2003 sampling
Table 3b. Subsurface soil concentration data for Source Area at the Former Miro Golf Course, Douglas, Michigan.
Table 3b. Subsurface soil concentration data for Source Area at the Former Miro Golf Course, Douglas, Michigan.Acronyms/Abbreviations:GCPC Groundwater Contact Protection CriteriaGSIPC Groundwater Surface Water Interface Protection CriteriaID insufficient data to determine criterionNA not availableNLL not likely to leachNLV not likely to volatilizeR/C DCC Residential and Commercial I Direct Contact CriteriaR/C SVIIC Residential and Commercia I Soil Volatilization to Indoor Air Inhalation Criteria
Notes:1. All concentrations in ppm (mg/kg).
Reference:EarthTech, Inc. 2003
2. All chemicals listed were detected in at least one environmental medium. Chemicals in bold were detected in groundwater. Shaded chemicals had detections greater than screening levels (exceedances).3. Chromium criteria shown are for the hexavalent form. These criteria are more protective than those for the trivalent form.
SAUGATUCK
DOUGLAS
196
31129TH AVE.
66T
H S
T.
65T
H S
T.
66T
H S
T.
FE
RR
Y S
T.
CENTER ST.
LAK
E S
HO
RE
DR
.
CAMPBELL ST.
130TH AVE.
KALAMAZOO LAKE
BLU
E S
TA
R M
EM
. HW
Y.
128TH AVE.
RAILROADS
POLITICAL BOUNDARIES
STATE HIGHWAYS
U.S. HIGHWAYS
INTERSTATE HIGHWAYS
TWO-TRACK ROADS
AIRPORTS
GRASS AIRSTRIPS
55
2
496
ABANDONED RAILROADS
OTHER MAJOR ROADS
MINOR ROADS
RIVERS AND STREAMS
INTERMITTENT STREAMS
MILES
0
0.5
1
Figure 1.FORMER MIRO GOLF COURSE
VILLAGE OF DOUGLAS,
ALLEGAN COUNTY, MICHIGAN
LOCATION
FORMER GOLF COURSE
1/10/2003Michigan Department of Community Health
CHASE
LAK
E M
ICH
IGA
N
WIC
K'S C
REEK
TAN
NER
Y C
R.
Figure 1.
CLUB HOUSE
BRIDGE
STAIRS
BRIDGE
BRIDGE
BRIDGE
BRIDGE
BRIDGE
GR
AVEL R
O AD
POND
CE NTE R S TRE ET
FE
RR
Y
S
TR
EE
T
CONDOMIN
IUM
S MARIN
A
GOLF
COURSE
PO N DPO N D
PO N D
PON D
M W - 35
M W - 27
M W - 29
M W - 30M W - 28
M W - 32
M W - 37S
M W - 37D
M W - 34S
M W - 34D
M W - 36
M W - 31
M W - 324 -IM W - 324 -R
M W - 301 -I
M W - 305 -I
M W - 303 -D
M W - 303 -I
M W - 304 -IM W - 304 -D
M W - D -10 3
M W - 323 -D
M W - 323 -IM W - 320 D
M W - 320 I
M W 32 1- IM W 32 1- D
M W 32 5- S
M W 32 5- DM W 32 5- I
VAS -2 1
M W - 33
M W - 301 -D
KALAMAZOO LAKE
WIC
K'S C
REEK
BLU
E S
TAR
HIG
HW
AY
HA W ORTHFACILITY
M W - 107 M W - 106
R W - 2
R W - 3
R W - 4
TREATMENT BUILDING
R W - 1
M W - D -10 4
M W - D -10 9-R
M W - 302 -I
M W - 108
SB- 03 -06
SB- 03 -07
SB- 03 -08
SB- 03 -01
SB- 03 -02
SB- 03 -03
SB- 03 -04
SB- 03 -05
SW -1/S G- 1
SW -2/S G- 2
SW -3/S G- 3
SW -4/S G- 4
SW -5/S G- 5
SW -6/S G- 6
SW -7/S G- 7
SW -8/S G- 8
SW -9/S G- 9
SW -10 /SG -10
SW -11 /SG 11
SW -12 /SG -12
SW -13 /SG -13
GP -03 -02
SB- 03 -09
SB- 03 -10
SB- 03 -11
SB- 03 -12
M W - 03- 11
SB- 03 -17SB- 03 -18
SB- 03 -19
SB- 03 -20
SB- 03 -13
SB- 03 -14
SB- 03 -16
SB- 03 -15
M W - 03- 01
M W - 03- 03
M W - 03- 05
M W - 03- 06
M W - 03- 07
M W - 03- 08
M W - 03- 09
M W - 03- 10
M W - 03- 12
M W - 03- 13
M W - 03- 14
M W - 306 -I
M W - 03- 04
M W - 03- 02
R ES -1
IR R IG AT ION W E LLGP -03 -01
GP -03 -03
GP -03 -04
PlumeInvestigationArea
SourceInvestigationArea
"Plume" and "Source" Investigation Areas,Village of Douglas, Allegan County, Michigan
Figure 2.
30
Certification This Former Miro Golf Course Health Consultation: Additional Environmental Contamination Data document was prepared by the Michigan Department of Community Health under a cooperative agreement with the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). It is in accordance with ATSDR-approved methodology and procedures the time the health consultation was initiated. Editorial review was completed by the Cooperative Agreement partner.
(Technical Project Officer, State Programs Section, SSAB, DHAC, ATSDR) The Division of Health Assessment and Consultation, ATSDR, has reviewed this public health consultation and concurs with the findings.
(Chief, State Programs Section, SSAB, DHAC, ATSDR)
