PUBLIC HEALTH ASSESSMENT
ELECTRO-COATINGS, INCORPORATED
CEDAR RAPIDS, LINN COUNTY, IOWA
ENVIRONMENTAL CONTAMINATION AND OTHER HAZARDS
Tables in this section list contaminants of concern at the Electro-Coatings site that were identified during the RI/FS process. However, their listing does not imply that a health threat exists. An evaluation of contaminants in subsequent sections determines whether exposure has occurred and if such exposure has public health significance. IDPH and ATSDR select the contaminants of concern based on the following factors: (1) concentrations of contaminants on and off the site, (2) field data quality, laboratory data quality, and sample design, (3) comparison of site-related concentrations with background concentrations, (4) comparison of site-related concentrations with health assessment comparison values for noncarcinogenic and carcinogenic endpoints and other appropriate values, and (5) community health concerns. A contaminant that is listed does not imply that adverse health effects will result from exposure, but indicates that a contaminant must be further evaluated in the public health assessment.
Concentrations of contaminants in specific media are compared with health-based guidelines, and the results are used to select contaminants for further evaluation. Comparison values include Environmental Media Evaluation Guides (EMEGs), Reference Dose Media Evaluation Guides (RMEGs), and Cancer Risk Evaluation Guides (CREGs).
EMEGs are media specific values based on ATSDR's Minimal Risk Levels (MRLs). EMEGs do not evaluate carcinogenic effects. RMEGs are similar to EMEGs, but are based on EPA's Reference Doses (RfDs) rather than MRLs. Nor do they evaluate carcinogenic potential. CREGs are estimated contaminant concentrations based on a one excess cancer case in a million people exposed over a lifetime. CREGs are calculated from EPA's cancer slope factors. Other comparison values are used if EMEGs, RMEGs, or CREGs are not available. Such comparison values may include EPA's Lifetime Health Advisory values, Maximum Contaminant Levels, or Action Levels.
Sampling activities were first conducted after the discovery of Cr VI in the cooling water at Hawkeye Rubber, and again between February 18 and September 3, 1991. The activities included environmental sampling of site subsurface soil, groundwater, and surface water and sediment in Cedar Lake. Table 1 lists the contaminants of concern found in the groundwater at the site. No other samples, other than groundwater, contained contaminants at levels of concern. However, surface water collected from Cedar Lake during earlier studies contained elevated levels of chlordane. The chlordane is not site-related. A swimming and fishing advisory has been issued for the lake, and signs are posted on the shoreline.
The groundwater plume of contamination in the sand aquifer is well defined for TCE (Figure 5) and Cr VI (Figure 6). The PCE plume, however, is not well defined (Figure 7). TCE and Cr VI appear to be migrating in a southwesterly direction. This is also the direction of groundwater flow. The highest level of PCE contamination is at Hawkeye Rubber, located approximately 300 feet downgradient of the Electro-Coatings facility. Investigators recorded in the RI document that PCE contamination may have been the result of a one-time release into the environment (1). It is not clear where the release originated. The high concentrations of PCE near the Hawkeye Rubber facility suggest that Hawkeye Rubber may be contributing to the PCE contamination. However, a slug of PCE could have been released from Electro-Coatings or from an unidentified source northwest of Electro-Coatings and has now reached the Hawkeye Rubber area. TCE contamination is highest along the western edge of the Electro-Coatings facility. The largest concentration of Cr VI was found near the former dip tank west of the Electro-Coatings facility.
Well water monitoring results suggest that Cedar Lake recharges groundwater in the area. Production wells that operate at Hawkeye Rubber may influence that condition. Groundwater samples from the site indicate that the sand and bedrock aquifers are both contaminated with VOCs, cadmium, and Cr VI. MW-6D, MW-8D, MW-10D, PW-1, and PW-2 tap into the bedrock aquifer. All other monitoring wells tap into the sand aquifer. One groundwater sample at soil borehole B-11 contained PCE at a maximum concentration of 15,400 micrograms per liter (µg/L).
Although the original source of the contaminants at the site was an underground storage tank containing Cr VI, the soil is no longer of concern since the contaminated soil was removed in 1992. The only contamination still on the site is contained within aquifers wherein the contaminants had leached into. It should be noted that the contaminated aquifers are not part of the water supply and are not utilized by anyone for any purpose.
Four monitoring wells (MW-9, MW-11, MW-10, and MW-10D) have been designated as on-site wells. MW-10D taps into the bedrock aquifer, and all others tap into the sand aquifer. MW-9 contains the highest levels of VOCs, cadmium, Cr VI, and nickel found within the sand aquifer. Although VOCs and Cr VI were detected in the bedrock monitoring well, the levels of those contaminants did not exceed comparison values. Cadmium, found at 5 µg/L did exceed the 2 µg/L comparison value (EMEG) in the bedrock aquifer. Table 1 shows the maximum levels found for each contaminant of concern in the sand aquifer on site.
TABLE 1. ON-SITE GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELLS * (µg/L)| Contaminant | Sand Aquifer | Comparison Value** | |
| Volatile Organic Compounds | |||
| 1,1-Dichloroethylene | 18 | 0.06 | CREG |
| Cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene | 356 | 70 | LTHA |
| Methylene Chloride | 336 | 5 | CREG |
| Tetrachloroethylene | 131 | 0.7 | CREG |
| Trichloroethylene | 694 | 3 | CREG |
| Metals | |||
| Cadmium | 16 | 2 | EMEG |
| Chromium VI | 2,500 | 50 | RMEG |
| Nickel | 199 | 100 | LTHA*** |
* = RI/FS, April 1992
** = Comparison value at time of release for public comment.
*** = Lifetime Health Advisory
Groundwater
The other 10 monitoring wells and the two industrial wells at Hawkeye Rubber comprise the off-site monitoring well network. MW-6 contains the highest levels of PCE. Levels of all contaminants except PCE decrease in the sand aquifer with distance from the site, however, higher concentrations of contaminants are found in the off-site bedrock aquifer. A list of all contaminants of concern found in off-site monitoring wells is shown in Table 2.
TABLE 2. OFF-SITE GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELLS * (µg/L)| Contaminant | Sand Aquifer | Bedrock Aquifer | Comparison Value** | |
| Volatile Organic Compounds | ||||
| 1,1-Dichloroethylene | 8.45 |
<5 |
0.06 |
CREG |
| Cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene | 76 | 1.6 | 70 | LTHA*** |
| Tetrachloroethylene | 7,450 | 686 | 0.7 | CREG |
| Trichloroethylene | 66 | 25.9 | 3 | CREG |
| Metals | ||||
| Cadmium | 11 | 8.0 | 2 | EMEG |
| Chromium VI | 1,700 | 1,600 | 50 | RMEG |
| Nickel | 24 | NA**** | 100 | LTHA |
Cedar Lake
Results of tests on sediment samples obtained by the Linn County Health Department from Cedar Lake between October 1990 and March 1991 indicate arsenic and chlordane are present in sediments at levels above comparison values. This sampling was not part of the RI/FS. Samples were analyzed by the University of Iowa Hygienic Laboratory. Arsenic was found at 20 parts per million (ppm) and chlordane was found at 0.6 ppm. The comparison values are 20 ppm (EMEG, chronic exposure for a child) for arsenic and 0.5 ppm (CREG) for chlordane. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) were also detected in lake sediments. However, none of the contaminants detected by UIHL have been associated with the site. Furthermore, although some contaminants were present above comparison values, all were at levels typically found in nature.
In 1992, an investigation by IDNR found that chlordane was the only contaminant at levels of health concern detected in sediment samples from Cedar Lake. Based on these findings, a Cedar Lake Health Advisory was issued by Iowa Electric Light and Power Company, IDNR, and the Linn County Health Department to inform the public not to swim in or eat fish from Cedar Lake (4). Health advisory warning signs are posted at the shoreline around the lake. The health advisory information is being presented in this public health assessment because of the lake's proximity to the site.
C. Quality Assurance and Quality Control
Quality Assurance/Quality Control information on the field and laboratory data was obtained for this public health assessment. Field blanks, trip blanks, duplicate samples, and/or split samples were analyzed for samples.
In preparing this public health assessment, IDPH assumes that sampling analyses discussed in the referenced documents followed correct chain of custody procedures, laboratory procedures, and data reporting procedures. Methylene chloride is a common laboratory contaminant, and some field blanks contained methylene chloride. The data presented for that contaminant may not reflect actual levels found in the environment.
The validity of the analyses and conclusions reached in this public health assessment is determined by the availability and reliability of referenced information.
No physical or other hazards were identified at the site.
E. Toxic Chemical Release Inventory (TRI) Data
IDPH searched the TRI database from 1988 through 1992 to identify facilities in proximity to the Electro-Coatings site that could contribute to contamination. Industries with 10 or more full-time employees are required by law to submit to the TRI estimated annual emission rates of toxic chemicals released to the environment (via air, water, land, or underground injection). PCE was listed as a contaminant that is released by other industries in the Cedar Rapids area. PCE reportedly has never been used at Electro-Coatings (1).
The environmental and human components that lead to possible human exposure are evaluated in this section of the public health assessment. An exposure pathway consists of the following elements: a source of contamination, transportation of the contaminant through an environmental medium, a point of exposure, a route of human exposure, and an exposed population.
An exposure pathway can be complete, potential, or eliminated. In a completed exposure pathway, all elements exist and exposure to a contaminant has occurred, is occurring, or could occur in the future. In a potential exposure pathway, at least one element of the pathway has not been identified in the available information. However, exposure to contaminants is possible, either in the past, present, or future. An exposure pathway can be eliminated if at least one element of the pathway is missing.
A. COMPLETED EXPOSURE PATHWAYS
No completed exposure pathways have been identified at the site.
B. POTENTIAL EXPOSURE PATHWAYS
Potential exposure pathways are summarized in the following table.
| Source | Environmental Medium | Point of Contact | Route of Exposure | Exposed Population |
| Cedar Lake | Fish | Fish | Ingestion | Unknown |
| Site | Groundwater | Tap | Ingestion Skin Contact Inhalation | Future Private Well Owners |
Cedar Lake
Although contaminants are not associated with the site, Cedar Lake contains arsenic and chlordane. This public health assessment discusses that contamination in order to help people avoid exposure to the contaminants. People who are not aware of the swimming advisory and use the lake recreationally can come into contact with the contaminants through incidental ingestion or through direct skin contact with the contaminants in the water and sediments. Also, people who ignore or are unaware of the fishing advisory may ingest the contaminants that have accumulated in fish tissue if they eat fish taken from the lake. However, in the absence of actual fish tissue data and information on how much fish is eaten, possible exposures cannot be further evaluated.
Groundwater
Groundwater is contaminated at the site, and the contamination has spread to off-site areas. Under normal groundwater flow conditions, the groundwater flows to the southwest, with a westward flow component, toward Cedar Lake and the Cedar River. Although most municipal wells are upgradient of the site, at least one municipal well is cross-gradient of the site. That well, and any other cross-gradient well, may intercept contaminants that flow westwardly from the site. Municipal water is monitored routinely according to federal and state regulations. Any contamination would likely be found before the contaminated water could harm the people using the water. If wells become contaminated at levels of concern, people could be exposed to the contaminants through ingestion of the water, inhalation of the VOCs, and through direct skin contact with the contaminants in the water.
No private wells, except the two Hawkeye Rubber Company wells, have been identified downgradient of the site. The industrial wells do contain site-related contaminants, but people do not come into contact with that water. Management at the facility is aware of the contamination. If a spill or leak occurs, people at the facility should avoid contact with the water. Because of the possible westward groundwater flow component, contamination of new, private wells that may be developed west of the site is possible. If wells are developed within the groundwater contaminant plume, people using the well water could be exposed to contaminants through ingestion or direct skin contact with contaminants in the water. Because groundwater is contaminated, private well development should be discouraged.
In this section, discussions on the plausible health effects that could occur in people exposed to site contaminants are presented. However, a person must come into contact with the contaminants in order for the chemicals to cause illness. No completed exposure pathways to contaminants have been identified at this site. Therefore, no illnesses are expected to occur as a result of the site contamination. Some potential exposure pathways, however, have been identified. Those exposure pathways involve the non-site related contamination in Cedar Lake, possible future use of contaminated groundwater, and possible emissions of contaminants to the air.
If people adhere to the fishing and swimming advisory for Cedar Lake, no exposure should occur. If people do swim or eat contaminated fish from the lake they could be exposed to contaminants. However, the public health implications of those exposures cannot be evaluated without information on contaminant content in the lake water and sediments, and contaminant levels in the fish.
If the highest levels of the contamination found on-site and off-site migrate to municipal wells west of the site or to any new wells developed west of the site, the levels of PCE and Cr VI would be of public health concern. However, the municipal water supply is monitored periodically, and contamination entering the water supply system should be found before the water is distributed to people at levels that could cause harm. As a preventive measure, the individual wells should continue to be monitored periodically. No new well development is known to be planned for areas west of the site; however, if any wells are developed in that area, they should be tested for contamination prior to use and periodically tested thereafter to avoid possible exposure.
Although it is a remote possibility, a potential exposure pathway for contaminants in groundwater exists. In such a remote event, the only contaminants to be of concern would be Cr VI and PCE. This section provides a brief description of the potential health effects associated with exposure to these contaminants at levels of public health concern.
Cr VI (5)
PCE (6)
B. Health Outcome Data Evaluation
No completed exposure pathways have been identified. Therefore, no adverse health outcomes would be expected. Moreover, area residents have not mentioned any specific health concerns related to the site. For those reasons, no health outcome data have been evaluated for this site.
C. Community Health Concerns Evaluation
IDNR and EPA have responsibility for the oversight and timing of activities at this site. From a health perspective, we would note that the problem was identified in March 1976, almost 25 years ago. Measures were initially taken by Electro-Coatings to cease further releases. They also installed monitoring wells at the direction of the state which they sampled frequently for a couple of years along with the Hawkeye Rubber Company industrial wells. Little activity occurred from about 1979 to 1983. In 1983, interest in the site was renewed when samples of the Hawkeye Rubber PW-1 were collected by the municipal wastewater treatment plant which indicated that persistent levels of Cr contamination remained. In response, Electro-Coatings installed another well and resumed sampling of monitoring wells for a few months. IDNR identified the site for preremedial Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA; aka, superfund) consideration. Again little activity occurred until 1986 when IDNR conducted a site inspection which subsequently led to the site being proposed for the National Priorities List (NPL) in June 1988. Listing of the site on the NPL became final in October 1989. IDNR issued an administrative order to Electro-Coatings in September 1989 to conduct a remedial investigation and feasibility study (RI/FS) of the site. The company was in bankruptcy at the time and was not able to proceed. In September 1990, IDNR initiated remedial investigation activities. In October 1990, Electro-Coatings entered into a consent order with IDNR in which they agreed to conduct the RI/FS. They conducted three phases of investigation in 1991 and submitted an RI/FS report to IDNR in April 1992. The April 1992 RI/FS suggested that the Hawkeye Rubber Company was the primary source of VOC contamination. In response to this uncertainty, IDNR conducted a supplemental remedial investigation in June 1992 and completed a report of this investigation in October 1992. In January 1993, Electro-Coatings was asked to revise the RI/FS. They responded with an Addendum to the RI/FS in April 1993. From that time until the Proposed Plan was approved by EPA in July 1994, IDNR and EPA prepared supplemental RI and FS documents and went through a series of reviews and modifications of these documents and the Proposed Plan between the two agencies.
It should be noted that throughout the history of this site, never has a worsening condition been identified. That is, an expansion of the contaminant plume or increase in contaminant levels has not been found which would suggest the need for immediate action. It has been apparent for some time that Hawkeye Rubber well PW-1 has done a good job of containing most contamination emanating from the Electro-Coatings site.
It is certainly possible that the drinking water standard for Cr could change. However, it is not likely that the standard for Cr would be substantially reduced for the following reasons:
It is estimated that the initial leak consisted of about 200 gallons of solution containing 32 ounces of chromic acid flakes per gallon.
Cr was found in two samples of water from Cedar Lake at concentrations below the MCL. However, Cr was not detected in split samples collected and analyzed by IDNR. Cr was also not detected in a subsequent water sample from Cedar Lake. Only low levels (i.e., typical of background soils) of Cr were detected in sediment samples from Cedar Lake. It should be noted that samples were collected near former discharge points.
Shortly after Hawkeye Rubber Company was confirmed as the source of PCE contamination, they took action to replace their equipment that had been cleaned with PCE with equipment that could be cleaned with soap and water. They have also conducted a groundwater investigation. Containment of contaminated groundwater has been and continues to be provided by the nearby industrial well (PW-1) operated by Hawkeye Rubber Company.
ATSDR'S CHILD HEALTH INITIATIVE
ATSDR's Child Health Initiative recognizes that the unique vulnerabilities of infants and children demand special emphasis in communities faced with contamination of their water, soil, air, or food. Children are at greater risk than adults from certain kinds of hazardous substances emitted from waste sites and emergency events. They are more likely to be exposed because they play outdoors and they often bring food into contaminated areas. They are shorter than adults, which means they breathe dust, soil, and heavy vapors close to the ground. Children are also smaller, resulting in larger doses of chemical exposure per body weight. The developing body systems of children can sustain permanent damage if toxic exposures occur during critical growth stages. Most importantly, children depend completely upon adults for risk identification and management decisions, housing decisions, and access to medical care.
The available information does not indicate that children are or have been exposed to site-related contaminants at levels which would cause illness or disease. Furthermore, it is unlikely that children will be exposed in the future since contaminants are contained by PW-1. Although no health follow-up actions are indicated at this time, should additional data become available, ATSDR and IDPH will evaluate that data for any follow-up health actions that may be indicated.
Next Section Table of Contents
