PUBLIC HEALTH ASSESSMENT
CROSS BROTHERS PAIL RECYCLING (PEMBROKE)
PEMBROKE TOWNSHIP, KANKAKEE COUNTY, ILLINOIS
ENVIRONMENTAL CONTAMINATION AND OTHER HAZARDS
This section of the public health assessment describes environmental sampling previously conducted at the site and identifies contaminants of concern found in specific environmental media. The selected contaminants are evaluated in subsequent sections of the health assessment to determine whether exposure to them has public health significance.
IDPH selects contaminants for further evaluation based upon the following factors:
It is emphasized that identification of a contaminant of concern in this section does not mean that exposure to it will cause adverse health effects. As mentioned above, the potential for adverse health effects resulting from exposure to contaminants of concern will be evaluated in subsequent sections of the health assessment.
The data tables include the following acronyms:
|
|
= |
Cancer Risk Evaluation Guide |
| = | Environmental Media Evaluation Guide | |
|
|
= | Lifetime Health Advisory |
|
|
= | Maximum Contaminant Level |
|
|
= | Reference Dose |
|
|
= | Reference Concentration |
|
|
= | not detected |
|
|
= | parts per billion |
|
|
= | parts per million |
Comparison values for health assessment are contaminant concentrations in specific
media that are used to select contaminants for further evaluation. These values
include Environmental Media Evaluation Guides (EMEGs), Cancer Risk Evaluation
Guides (CREGs), and other relevant guidelines.
EMEGs are media-specific screening values developed by ATSDR for use in selecting environmental contaminants of potential health concern. EMEGs are based on noncarcinogenic health endpoints and do not consider potential carcinogenic effects. CREGs are estimated comparison concentrations for specific chemicals based on one excess cancer in a million persons exposed over a lifetime. CREGs are calculated from EPA's cancer slope factors. Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) represent contaminant concentrations that EPA deems protective of public health (considering the availability and economics of water treatment technology) over a lifetime (70 years) at an exposure rate of 2 liters water per day. EPA's Lifetime Health Advisories (LTHAs) represent the level of a contaminant in drinking water (with a margin of safety) at which adverse noncarcinogenic health effects would not be anticipated during a lifetime (70 years) exposure.
While MCLs are regulatory concentrations, LTHAs are not.
EPA's Reference Dose (RfD) is an estimate of the daily exposure to a contaminant that is unlikely to cause adverse health effects.
The data presented in this subsection was collected during the March of 1987 and February of 1988 HS. On-site contamination refers to samples collected in the IRM construction limits (Figures 3 and 4). No new data has been collected since the 1988 sampling.
Groundwater
The data generated during the HS indicated that the groundwater in the Kankakee Aquifer beneath and downgradient of the site was contaminated with volatile and semi-volatile organic compounds (Table l). Contamination was found primarily at the water table (Appendix A, Figure 3). Inorganic compounds (metals) were not detected above background levels or health comparison values, except for lead concentrations of 35 to 48 ppb which are above the USEPA Action Level of 15 ppb.
Table 1 - Range of Contaminant Concentration in On-site
Groundwater Monitoring Wells
| Contaminant | Range-ppb |
|
|
||
| Benzene | 2-88 |
||||
| Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate | 2-88 |
||||
| 1,2-Dichloroethene | 2-88 |
(child) | |||
| Ethylbenzene | 2-88 |
(child) | |||
| Naphthalene | 2-88 |
||||
| Toluene | 2-88 |
||||
| Vinyl Chloride | 2-88 |
||||
| Lead | ND-48 | 3-87 2-88 |
2 | 15A | MCL |
Soil
The l985 IRM focused on the removal of surficial and buried waste materials as well as visibly contaminated soil. Subsequent to the IRM, sampling and analyses of soil (March - April, l987 and February l988) at the site indicated that soil contamination by volatile and semi-volatile organics exists throughout the unsaturated zone (approximately 0 to 6 feet in depth - Tables 2 and 3). The major areas of soil contamination were near the building used for drum and pail reclamation and in the waste disposal area near the center of the site (Appendix A, Figure 4). The majority of compounds present were solvents and PCBs from the past drum refurbishing operation. Inorganic compounds were not detected above background levels or health comparison values.
Air
Sampling and analyses of air was not performed because contamination is mostly confined to soil at depths and therefore would not be expected at significant levels in the air. However, during remedial activities, this medium will have to be evaluated.
Table 2 - Range of Contaminant Concentrations in
On-site Soil Samples1
| Contaminant | Concentration Range-ppm |
Date | Reference | Comparison Value | |
| ppm | Source | ||||
| Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate | ND-6.70 | 3,4-87 2-88 |
2 | None | None |
| Polychlorinated biphenyls | ND-1.12 | 3,4-87 2-88 |
2 | 0.01 | EMEG |
Table 3 - Range of Contaminant Concentrations in On-site
Subsurface Soil Samples
| Contaminant | Concentration Range-ppm |
Date | Reference | Comparison Value | |
| ppm | Source | ||||
| Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate | ND-25D | 3,4-87 2-88 |
2 | 50 | CREG |
| Cresols | ND-1.0D | 3,4-87 2-88 |
2 | None | None |
| Ethylbenzene | ND-580.0D | 3,4-87 2-88 |
2 | 5,000 | RFD (child) |
| Naphthalene | ND-27.0 | 3,4-87 2-88 |
2 | None | None |
| Polychlorinated biphenyls | ND-0.25 | 3,4-87 2-88 |
2 | 0.09 | CREG |
| Vinyl chloride | ND-18.0 | 3,4-87 2-88 |
2 | 1.0 | EMEG (child) |
Surface Water
No surface water samples were collected since the drainage ditch located on site did not contain water during the sampling period. The main body of water is the Kankakee River which is located approximately 4.5 miles northeast of the site.
Sediment
Sediment sampling in the ditch was not conducted.
The data generated in this subsection was collected during a July of 1980 field investigation by IEPA and the March of 1987 and February of 1988 HS.
Groundwater
Available documentation mentioned that site contamination had migrated off-site to the north and contaminated two residential potable water wells (which were replaced with deeper water wells). The l980 sampling results in Table 4 indicate that organic compounds (i.e. methylcyclohexanone, toluene, 3,3,5-trimethylcyclohexanol, 3,3,5-trimethylcyclohexanone) were identified as contaminants of concern in these wells which prompted their replacement. Xylene was also detected at 88 ppb which is less than the comparison value. Sampling of 22 residential wells located near the site was conducted during March of l987. No contaminants were detected except bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (DEHP). The cause and origin of this chemical of concern was probably the polyvinyl chloride (PVC) plumbing fixtures used within the houses. This compound is used as a plasticizer for resins and elastomers.
Table 4 - Range of Contaminant Concentrations in Off-site
Groundwater Private Wells
| Contaminant | Concentration Range-ppb |
Date | Reference | Comparison Value | |
| ppb | Source | ||||
| Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate | ND-210 | 8-87 | 2 | 2.5 | CREG |
| Methylcyclohexanone | ND-11000 | 8-80 | 2 | None | None |
| Toluene | ND-7900 | 8-80 | 2 | 2,000 | RfD (child) |
| 3,3,5-Trimethylcyclohexanol | ND-3200 | 8-80 | 2 | None | None |
| 3,3,5-Trimethylcyclohexanone | ND-6400 | 8-80 | 2 | None | None |
| Lead | ND-14 | 2-88 | 2 | 15A | MCL |
Soil
The migration of chemicals to off-site soil was limited. Contamination was detected in areas located just south of the site as illustrated in Figure 4. Contaminants of concern are shown in Tables 5 and 6.
Air
Sampling and analyses of air was not performed because contamination is mostly confined to
on-site soil at depths and therefore would not be expected at significant levels in the air.
However, during remedial activities air quality will have to be evaluated.
Table 5 - Range of Contaminant Concentrations in Off-site
Soil Samples1
| Contaminant | Concentration Range-ppm |
Date | Reference | Comparison Value | |
| ppm | Source | ||||
| Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate | ND-1.77 | 3,4-87 2-88 |
2 | 50 | CREG |
| Naphthalene | ND-126.0 | 3,4-87 2-88 |
2 | None | None |
| Polychlorinated Biphenyls | ND-0.43 | 3,4-87 2-88 |
2 | 0.09 | CREG |
Table 6 - Range of Contaminant Concentrations in Off-site
Subsurface Soil Samples1
| Contaminant | Concentration Range-ppm |
Date | Reference | Comparison Value | |
| ppm | Source | ||||
| Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate | ND-2.50 | 3,4-87 2-88 |
2 | 50 | CREG |
| Polychlorinated Biphenyls | ND-110.0 | 3,4-87 2-88 |
2 | 0.09 | CREG |
Surface water
No surface water locations were identified within close proximity to the site. The nearest main body of water is the Kankakee River which is located approximately 4.5 miles northeast of the site.
Biota
No sampling of cropland plants, fish, or other living organisms was collected. At this time there does not appear to be contamination identified off-site that is at levels high enough to cause bioaccumulation in plants or animal species at levels of concern.
Toxic Chemical Release Inventory (TRI)
IDPH conducted a search of the EPA TRI for the site and local area but TRI did not list any facilities having chemical releases in the area.
C. Quality Assurance and Quality Control
In preparing this Health Assessment, IDPH relies on the information provided in the referenced documents and assumes that adequate quality assurance and quality control measures were followed with regard to chain-of-custody, laboratory procedures, and data reporting. The validity of the analysis and conclusions drawn for this Health Assessment is determined by the availability and reliability of the referenced information.
The two truck trailers and fork lifts represent a potential physical hazard to any children who
might play on the site. Access to the site after operation hours might be discouraged since the
owner, James Cross, currently resides on the site. However, access to the site is not limited by a
fence or other barrier. Unauthorized site entrance has not been reported to be a problem by IEPA personnel or the local population.
To determine whether nearby residents are exposed to contamination migrating from the site, IDPH evaluates the environmental and human components that lead to human exposure. This pathways analysis consists of five elements: A source of contamination, transport through an environmental medium, a point of exposure, a route of human exposure, and an exposed population.
IDPH categorizes an exposure pathway as a completed or potential exposure pathway if the
exposure pathway cannot be eliminated. Completed pathways require that the five elements
exist and indicate that exposure to a contaminant has occurred in the past, is currently occurring,
or will occur in the future. Potential pathways, however, require that at least one of the five
elements is missing but could exist. Potential pathways indicate that exposure to a contaminant
could have occurred in the past, could be occurring now or could occur in the future. An
exposure pathway can be eliminated if at least one of the five elements is missing and will never
be present. Tables 7 and 8 identify the completed and potential exposure pathways. The
discussion that follows incorporates only those pathways that are important and relevant to the
site. There is also some discussion of those exposure pathways that have been eliminated.
Table 7 - Completed Exposure Pathway
| Pathway Name | Exposure Pathway Elements | Time | ||||
| Source | Environmental Media |
Point of Exposure |
Route of Exposure |
Exposure Population |
||
| Private Well | Cross Bros. | Groundwater (Private Well) |
Residences (Tap) |
Ingestion Inhalation Skin Contact |
Users of Water |
Past |
Table 8 - Potential Exposure Pathways
| Pathway Name | Exposure Pathway Elements | Time | ||||
| Source | Environmental Media |
Point of Exposure |
Route of Exposure |
Exposure Population |
||
| Private Well | Cross Bros. | Groundwater (Private Well) |
Residences (Tap) |
Ingestion Inhalation Skin Contact |
Users of Water |
Future |
| Worker-Waste Material | Cross Bros. |
Waste Material (buried waste and drums containing solvents) | On-site trenches and waste storage areas | Ingestion
Inhalation
Skin Contact |
Employees
Site Remedial Workers |
Past |
| Soil | Cross Bros. | Surface Soil | Site Area | Ingestion (Dust) | Employees
Site Remedial Workers Residents |
Past |
A. Completed Exposure Pathways
Private Water Supply Pathway
The only completed exposure pathway resulted from past contamination of groundwater in residential wells located near the site. In particular, two residential wells that were located immediately to the north (in the pathway of the groundwater contamination plume) exhibited contamination similar to contaminants detected in on-site groundwater monitoring wells. Twenty-two residential wells located to the west of the site were sampled; however, contaminants (DEHP and lead) detected were the result of indoor plumbing materials rather than from migrating site contaminants.
As of April 1990, most of the residents living to the northwest of the site have been connected to the Pembroke Township's Municipal Water Supply. Therefore, current and future concerns of the availability of uncontaminated drinking water for this population have been eliminated.
B. Potential Exposure Pathways
Private Water Supply Pathway
Analyses of groundwater samples from the on-site monitoring wells indicated that groundwater in the Pembroke Aquifer was contaminated with volatile, semi-volatile organic, and inorganic (lead) compounds. In 1980, there were two contaminated residential wells identified immediately to the north of the site, but they have since been replaced by deeper wells. More recently, there was another private well located further downgradient of the site which was replaced with a new well because of poor construction and coliform bacteria contamination. A potential pathway exists for other wells further downgradient, however, groundwater remediation (Pump and Treat System) is planned which should prevent the migration of site contaminants this far north. Therefore, residents will not be exposed to contaminants via ingestion of drinking water, dermal contact and absorption, and inhalation of contaminants in aerosols and vapors from waters during showering or other household activities.
Worker-Waste Material Pathway
Site workers and the facility's employees could have been exposed to site contaminants through inhalation of contaminated air, ingestion of contaminated soil and dust, and skin contact with contaminated soil. Site workers should have worn appropriate personal protective equipment and complied with applicable health and safety guidelines during the cleanup. It is doubtful that the employees of the operation wore such safety equipment. Employees' exposure most likely occurred when waste materials were drained from pails and drums on to the ground and then cleaned out with waste solvents. However, there is insufficient data available to determine the extent of their exposure to the site's contaminants during its operation.
Soil Pathway
The 1985 IRM focused on the removal of surficial and buried waste materials as well as visibly contaminated soil. Soil sampling conducted subsequent to this remedial activity indicated that some remaining soils are contaminated with VOCs and PCBs. However, this contamination is predominately located on-site in subsurface soils.
Direct ingestion of soil is primarily a concern for children 9 months to 5 years of age. With the exception of contaminated surface soil detected immediately south of the site, it is very unlikely that children of this age group would spend a significant amount of their time unsupervised by their parents or older siblings at the site. Furthermore, the off-site soil contamination is not in an area that children of this age group would likely play.
While ingestion of contaminated soil was possible by employees of the site's operation, no data
for soil dust in ambient air was conducted during the facility's pail and drum recycling operation.
Since this information is not available, IDPH cannot asses the importance of this potential
exposure pathway. Hence, this potential exposure pathway will not be assessed further in the
Public Health Assessment.
In this section we will evaluate the potential health effects in persons exposed to the contaminants of concern for which a completed pathway existed, discuss health outcome data, and address the specific community health concerns.
In this subsection we will discuss the possible health effects resulting from past exposure to contaminants in the completed pathway (two residential wells in the Kankakee Aquifer). To evaluate health effects, we have estimated human exposure doses of the groundwater contaminants and compared these with health effects information in the ATSDR Toxicological Profiles. This discussion is limited to potential health effects that can occur at exposure levels similar to those found at this site or a discussion of effects at the lowest doses that can produce an effect. ATSDR has developed Minimal Risk Levels (MRLs) to evaluate non-cancer health effects. A MRL is an estimate of daily human exposure, in milligrams per kilogram of body weight per day (mg/kg/day), to a contaminant below which non-cancer, adverse health effects are unlikely to occur. MRLs are developed for the oral and inhalation routes of exposure, and for the length of exposure, such as acute (14 days or less), intermediate (15 to 365 days), and chronic (greater than 365 days). An EPA Reference Dose (RfD) is an estimate of a daily exposure (mg/kg/day) to the general public that is likely to be without an appreciable risk of deleterious effects during a lifetime.
The exposure dose assessment assumes that adults drink 2 liters of tap water per day and children drink 1 liter of tap water per day. For noncarcinogens, ingestion assumptions for children were evaluated because children receive a larger dose due to their larger ingestion-to-body weight ratio than adults.
Toluene
Toluene exposure occurred to some residences through the completed exposure pathway of ingestion. The two contaminated water supplies were located immediately north (downgradient) of the site. This represents a past condition which may have occurred from 1961-1980 when these two wells were replaced with deeper uncontaminated wells.
A chronic oral MRL has not been developed however; an EPA RfD of 0.2 mg/kg/day is available. Using the highest toluene concentration detected in a private well (7,900 µg/L), the ingestion exposure for adults and children exceeds the EPA RfD.
Toluene is a clear, colorless liquid with a sweet odor. It readily decomposes in the soil and evaporates rapidly. The primary health concern in humans is toluene's narcotic and toxic effects on the nervous system. Inhalation of this compound can produce fatigue, confusion, general weakness, drunken actions, memory loss, nausea, and loss of appetite. At higher concentrations, impaired speech, vision and hearing loss, and loss of muscle control have been reported (6). However, it is not expected that any of these health effects would be associated with past exposure to the completed pathway of ingesting contaminated water.
There is little information as to the mutagenic, immunological, or other systemic hazards posed by this compound following oral exposure. Limited animal studies have not shown any reproductive or developmental effects. One study indicated some neurological effects, but the specific mechanisms have not been identified.
Methylcyclohexanone
Since there are no ATSDR Toxicological Profiles for methylcyclohexanone, 3,3,5-trimethylcyclohexanone, and 3,3,5-trimethylcyclohexanol, information was gathered from a variety of other sources (7-17).
This ketone is a colorless liquid of low volatility with a acetone-like odor. This compound and its isomers are considered only moderately toxic in animal tests (8,10-12,15). High concentrations typically produce central nervous system (CNS) depression and narcosis characteristic of solvents (8,10-12,15). Low concentrations are characterized by the strong odor and irritation of eyes and mucous membranes (8,10-12,15). The methylcyclohexanones are considered to have good warning properties (8).
Currently, no health guidelines exist for this compound and the data set is not complete enough to derive values in which a high degree of confidence may be placed. To evaluate possible health effects of low level exposure, the following assessment was done. An inhalation no-observed-effect-level (NOEL) of 182 ppm (733 mg/m3) was reported for rabbits repeatedly exposed to this compound (8). Using this information together with the approach postulated by Layton, et al. (1987) to derive NOELs from acute toxicity data (9), and extrapolation of the workplace threshold limit value (TLV) of 50 ppm (8) provides a reference dose range for use in screening. This range is between 2.1 and 0.15 mg/kg/day which is above the estimated dose for this compound from oral ingestion. This, combined with the low toxicity as well as the warning properties of the compound which would give a degree of unpalatability to the water, would suggest that exposure would not result in doses expected to cause observable and significant health effects. More information is necessary on the toxicokinetics and chronic toxicity of methylcyclohexanone to confirm this initial evaluation of its hazard potential.
There is little data on chronic effects associated with exposure to this compound in humans or animals. No specific information exists as to potential carcinogenicity, mutagenicity, reproductive effects or other systemic hazards (8,10-12,15); however, by analogy with similar compounds (8), the liver, kidney, CNS, lung and skin would be suggested as likely target organs.
3,3,5-Trimethylcyclohexanone
Little data exists for this methyl substituted ketone, aside from a report that it causes severe eye irritation in rabbits. It is identified as a skin and eye irritant in Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemical Substances (RTECS) (16). It is assumed that its toxicity and biologic behavior would be similar to the mono-methylcyclohexanone discussed above (8,10-12,15), but supporting data needs to be developed.
Assuming a similarity in hazard potential with mono-methylcyclohexanone would indicate that the anticipated exposure to trimethylcyclohexanone in drinking water would probably not result in significant health effects to consumers for the same reasons as cited above and below.
3,3,5-Trimethylcyclohexanol
No comparison values exist for this compound; however, an approximation of the reference dose range can be made utilizing the results of some inhalation experiments and various uncertainty factors (1000-10000). These include a short-term LOEL for histopathologic changes in rabbits, a short-term NOEL in rabbits, and a LOEL for increase in urinary glucuronic acid excretion in rabbits (13,14,17). This information combined with extrapolation of workplace limit of 50 ppm (17), and extrapolation of acute toxicity data in the manner of Layton, et al. (1987) (17) gives a reference dose range between 0.3 and 0.02 mg/kg/day. The anticipated dose resulting from the ingestion of the water falls within this range. Given the anticipated low toxicity, the degree of conservatism inherent in establishing the reference range, and the disagreeable taste and odor associated with this water contamination makes it unlikely that such exposure would result in significant and observable health effects in consumers. Additional toxicity and kinetic data is necessary to confirm this preliminary hazard evaluation.
There is no information as to the carcinogenic, mutagenic, reproductive, or other systemic hazards posed by this compound (13,14,17), but the liver, kidney, CNS, and blood system are likely targets based on the above information and analogy to similar compounds.
B. Health Outcome Data Evaluation
There was no site specific health outcome data identified that was appropriate to this site. According to the local county health department, there are no records or studies that may have been performed in the community.
At this time, there are no plans to perform an evaluation of health outcome data because exposure was limited to only two residences which are presently vacated. This small exposed population size would not provide any statistically significant data. Furthermore, there are no records to indicate how much these two residences used their water supply for drinking as opposed to some other source. Documentation only stated that the water exhibited a slightly cloudy appearance and solvent-like odor.
Each of the community concerns about health are addressed as follows:
According to the HS, groundwater moves toward a northerly direction at the site. Groundwater sampled up to a 0.25 mile north of the site is contaminated; however, groundwater sampled to the south, east, and west of the site has not shown site contamination. Township public supply wells are located southwest of the site. Moreover, water is drawn from the deeper, uncontaminated aquifer. As such, it would be unlikely for the site's contamination to reach the township's wells. The public water supply is tested regularly as part of a State regulatory program under the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act.
The primary way in which residents could become exposed to site contamination is through contaminated drinking water. As mentioned in the Public Health Assessment, this is presently not the case. For the two families which were exposed to contaminated drinking water before they got replacement deeper wells, health examinations were conducted. These evaluations occurred in November of 1983 by the Cook County Hospital, Division of Occupational Medicine. Their findings concluded that no evidence of any significant health problems were found as a result of possible exposure to site related groundwater contaminants.
The Emergency Plans section of the proposed remedial action will include input and involvement from the local fire department.
The proposed incinerator will not be on-site, it will be at an off-site location.
Next Section Table of Contents
