PUBLIC HEALTH ASSESSMENT
H.O.D. LANDFILL
ANTIOCH, LAKE COUNTY, ILLINOIS
Sequoit Industrial Park Facilities
A. Sequoit Industrial Park Facilities
1. Key Home Products/Quaker Industries/Cunningham Dump/Quaker Dump
The eastern area of the Sequoit Acres Industrial Park, located west of H.O.D. landfill is low-lying and was reportedlyfilled with refuse. Landfilling of unidentified wastes began around 1959, south of McMillen Road in the formerCunningham Dump, located in the current Quaker Industries Parking Lot. The Cunningham Dump closed in 1963, andthe property, which corresponds to the "old" landfill area of H.O.D. Landfill, was later used for the disposal of theVillage's municipal waste. Private waste disposal on the Quaker property in the same general area as the CunninghamDump continued until 1965; however, the exact location of this disposal area is not known. Other landfill areas alongSequoit and Anita Avenues have been filled for industrial development.
Quaker Industries, Inc. manufactures wood and metal tray tables and utilizes hot and cold solvent processes. Afterlandfilling began at H.O.D., Quaker built a storage warehouse over the covered refuse at the Cunningham Dump, whichwas sold to Malnekoff Closeouts in 1987. According to information supplied by Quaker to USEPA, the wastesgenerated from Quaker's operations included paint thinners, sludges, and lacquers. Supplemental permits for the H.O.D.Landfill allowed the disposal of Quaker paints, coolants, paint booth oversprays, and water soluble oil and stain. Correspondence between Quaker and the State of Illinois in the late 1960s indicated that the company dischargeduntreated industrial effluent to Sequoit Creek or the adjacent wetlands. Reportedly, the chemicals used in the Quakermanufacturing process were discharged via a currently existing pipe located near the southwestern corner of the H.O.D.site.
In 1988, Quaker obtained a National Pollution Discharge Effluent System (NPDES) permit for the discharge ofapproximately 30,000 gallons per day of non-contact cooling water to Sequoit Creek. Quaker has also reportedly storeddrums of wastes at the plant. In 1980, Quaker applied for a RCRA permit for the storage of hazardous wastes, whichwas withdrawn in 1983. In 1984, USEPA informed Quaker that it did not require a permit for its storage operations, as itwas a small quantity generator.
Potential contamination sources at the plant include floor drains, sanitary sewer discharges, and air emissions of VOCs(until 1980). The company has a history of underground storage tanks (USTs) on its property. Reportedly, a 10,000-gallon steel underground oil storage tank was installed around 1961 and was removed in 1989, due to non-use. A200,000-gallon concrete underground water tank, for the operation of a sprinkler system was installed in 1964. It was lastused in 1975. Another steel 500-750-gallon tank is reportedly used for the storage of used oil or water.
2. The Antioch Township Highway Department
The Antioch Township Highway Department has three registered USTs near the site. A 4,000-gallon unlined steel tankis used to store gasoline, and a 1,000-gallon unlined steel tank stores diesel fuel. The tanks have been painted to preventcorrosion. A third UST, of unspecified size has been unused since 1983. It is not known if it is painted.
3. Chicago Ink and Research Company, Inc.
Chicago Ink and Research Company, Inc. has been manufacturing industrial ink in the industrial park since 1956. Hazardous wastes generated by the company may include solvent washes and sludges, caustic washes and sludges, andwater washes and sludges from cleaning equipment, soaps, and stabilizers containing chromium and lead. The companyhas a registered 60-gallon lined UST which is painted, but its contents are unknown.
4. Galdine Electronics, Inc.
Galdine Electronics, Inc., a manufacturer of printed electronic circuit boards has been operating in the industrial parksince the late 1960s. Hazardous wastes generated by the company reportedly include methylene chloride, hydrochloricacid mixture, chromic acid solution, plating sludge, and a flammable liquid waste. Rinse water from their manufacturingprocesses is discharged into the Village of Antioch sanitary sewers.
5. Nu-Way Speaker Products, Inc.
Nu-Way Speaker Products, Inc., an affiliate of Galdine Electronics, Inc. was a former manufacturer of printed circuitboards in the industrial park. A non-hazardous spent copper etching solution by-product was generated duringoperations.
6. Major Industrial Truck, Inc.
Major Industrial Truck, Inc. has sold, serviced, and rented forklifts at the industrial park since around 1975. No productsare manufactured on-site. The company has notified IEPA that it ships ignitable hazardous wastes to Safety KleenCorporation in Elgin, Illinois for treatment and disposal.
7. Roll Foil Laminating, Inc.
Roll Foil Laminating, Inc. is present in the park, and in March of 1987, the company filed a Notification of HazardousWaste Activity report with USEPA, which specified that the company generated less than 1,000 kilograms per month ofnon-halogenated solvents.
Source: Waste Management of Illinois, Inc.
| ORGANICS | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chemical | Frequencyof Detection | Concentration(ppb) | ComparisonValue (ppb) | Source |
| Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP) | 8/10 | ND-4,100* | 3 | CREG |
| Trichloroethene | 10/38 | ND-7 | 3 | CREG |
| 1,2-Dichloroethene (total) | 6/11 | ND-100 | 70 | LTHA** |
| GROUNDWATER HYDROPUNCH® | ||||
| Vinyl Chloride | 1/1 | 188.4 | 0.2 | EMEG (Chronic) Child |
| Cis-1,2 Dichloroethene | 1/1 | 110.3 | 70 | LTHA |
| INORGANICS | ||||
| Cadmium | 2/9 | ND-6 | 2 | EMEG (Chronic) |
| Manganese | 23/23 | ND-209 | 50 | RMEG |
| Arsenic | 1/7 | ND-5 | 3 | EMEG (Chronic) Child |
| Sodium | 24/25 | ND-57,400 | 20,000 | USEPA Guidance Level |
| Zinc | 107/112 | ND-4,640 | 3,000 | RMEG Child |
| Sulfate | 13/13 | ND-910,800 | 250,000 | SMCL |
| Boron | 127/127 | ND-388 | 100 | EMEG Child |
| ppb = parts per billion | ND = not detected | ® = Trademark name |
| est. = estimated concentration | * = also detected in blank | |
| ** = comparison value based on cis-1,2-dichloroethene | ||
(Sources: Ecology and Environment, 1989; Waste Management of Illinois, Inc., 1992; Warzyn, 1992; and 1980 Federal Register)
| Chemical | Concentration (ppb) |
|---|---|
| Benzene | ND-21 |
| Toluene | BDL-170 |
| Tetrachloroethene | ND-1.4 |
| cis-1,2-Dichloroethene | 0.5-0.6 |
| trans-1,2-Dichloroethene | 0.6-45 |
| 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene | 11-72 |
| Trichloroethene | ND-0.6 |
| n-Propylbenzene | 1.9-6.3 |
| Naphthalene | 6.1-22.3 |
| 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene | 3-12 |
| p-Isopropyltoluene | 1.3-13.8 |
| Isopropylbenzene | 2.5-5.7 |
| sec-Butylbenzene | 0.5-2.5 |
| Chlorobenzene | ND-2.6 |
| m-Dichlorobenzene | 8.2-10.0 |
| o-Xylene | 14.8-46.2 |
| m-Xylene | 29.8-103 |
| Ethyl benzene | 5.6-230 |
| o-Chlorotoluene | ND-6.0 |
| p-Dichlorobenzene | ND-31.2 |
| Methylene Chloride | ND-45 |
| 1,2-Dichloropropane | ND-10 |
ND = not detected ppb = parts per billion
(Sources: Ecology and Environment, 1989; and Warzyn, 1992)
| Organic Chemical | Frequency of Detection | Concentration (ppb) | Comparison Value (ppb) | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Di-n-butylphthalate | 8/13 | 120-1,400(est.)* | None | None |
| Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate | 8/13 | 190-710* | 40 | RMEG (pica child) |
| Chrysene | 1/13 | ND-51 (est.) | None | None |
| Di-n-octylphthalate | 3/13 | ND-83 (est.) | None | None |
| 2-methylnaphthalene | 1/13 | ND-51 (est.) | None | None |
| Phenanthrene | 4/13 | ND-83 (est.) | None | None |
| Inorganic Chemical | Frequency of detection | Concentration (ppm) | Comparison Value (ppm) | Source |
| Arsenic | 9/13 | ND-12 | 0.4 | CREG |
| Beryllium | 9/13 | ND-1.2 | 0.2 | CREG |
| Chromium | 13/13 | 3.8-19 (est.) | 10 | RMEG** (pica child) |
| Cobalt | 12/13 | ND-13 | None | None |
| Copper | 13/13 | 7.3-31 | None | None |
| Lead | 13/13 | 8.9-16 (est.) | None | None |
| Manganese | 13/13 | 84-713 | 10 | RMEG (pica child) |
| Nickel | 13/13 | 8.7-40 | None | None |
| Vanadium | 13/13 | 4.9-65 | None | None |
| ppb = parts per billion | ppm = parts per million | * = also detected in blank |
| est. = estimated concentration | ** = based on Chromium (VI) | |
| (Source: Ecology and Environment, 1989) | ||
| Chemical | Frequency of Detection | Concentration (ppb) | Comparison Value (ppb) | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Benzene | 1/13 | ND-8 | 1 | CREG |
| Manganese | 7/8 | ND-282 | 50 | RMEG (Child) |
| Boron | 3/3 | 148-483 | 100 | EMEG (Inter.) Child |
| Sodium | 8/8 | 16,600-81,500 | 20,000 | USEPA Guidance Level |
| ppb = parts per billion | ND = not detected |
| (Sources: Ecology and Environment, 1989; Warzyn, 1992, and 1980 Federal Register) | |
| ORGANICS | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chemical | Frequency of Detection | Concentration (ppb) | Comparison Value (ppb) | Source |
| Tetrachloroethylene | 2/28 | ND-1.6 | 0.7 | CREG |
| Vinyl Chloride | 11/28 | ND-6.7 | 0.2 | EMEG (Chronic) Child |
| INORGANICS | ||||
| Arsenic | 24/37 | ND-5 | 0.02 | CREG |
| Aluminum | 1/26 | ND-1364 | None | None |
| Boron | 36/36 | ND-460 | 100 | EMEG (Inter.) Child |
| Cobalt | 1/36 | ND-5 | None | None |
| Lead | 12/35 | ND-17 | 15 | USEPA Action Level |
| Sodium | 38/38 | 21,200-62,000 | 20,000 | USEPA Guidance Level |
| Thallium | 1/1 | ND-8.91 (est.)* | 0.4 | LTHA |
| ppb = parts per billion; | est. = estimated value; |
| ND = not detected; | * = possible lab matrix problem - also detected in blank |
| (Sources: IEPA files; Ecology and Environment, 1989; Warzyn, 1992; and 1980 Federal Register) | |
| Chemical | Frequency of Detection | Concentration (ppb) | Comparison Value (ppb) | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Arsenic | 1/7 | ND-2 (est.) | 0.02 | CREG |
| Sodium | 7/7 | 25,000-58,900 | 20,000 | USEPA Guidance Level |
| Thallium | 6/7 | ND-5.76 (est.)* | 0.4 | LTHA |
| ppb = parts per billion | est. = estimated concentration |
| ND = not detected | |
| * = possible lab matrix problem - also detected in blank | |
(Sources: Ecology and Environment, 1989; and 1980 Federal Register)
| ORGANICS | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chemical | Frequency | Concentration (ppb) | Comparison Value (ppb) | Source |
| Di-n-butylphthalate | 25/31 | 290 (est.)-5500* | None | None |
| Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate | 4/31 | ND-2400* (est.) | 40 | RMEG (pica child) |
| Di-n-octylphthalate | 5/31 | ND-67 (est.) | None | None |
| Benzo[a]anthracene | 1/31 | ND-65 (est.) | None | None |
| Benzo[b]fluoranthene | 2/31 | ND-57 (est.) | None | None |
| Benzo[k]fluoranthene | 1/31 | ND-69 (est.) | None | None |
| Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene | 1/31 | ND-62 | None | None |
| Dibenzo[a,h]anthracene | 1/31 | ND-65 (est.) | None | None |
| Phenanthrene | 1/31 | ND-66 (est.) | None | None |
| Butylbenzylphthalate | 2/31 | ND-55 (est.) | None | None |
| INORGANICS | ||||
| Chemical | Frequency | Concentration (ppm) | Comparison value (ppm) | Source |
| Arsenic | 18/31 | ND-20 | 0.4 | CREG (Chronic) |
| Beryllium | 18/31 | ND-1.3 | 0.2 | CREG |
| Chromium | 30/31 | ND-27 | 10 | RMEG (pica child) |
| Manganese | 31/31 | 168-708 (est.) | 10 | RMEG (pica child) |
| ND = not detected | est. = estimated concentration | |
| ppb = parts per billion | ppm = parts per million | * = also detected in laboratory blank |
| (Source: Ecology and Environment, 1989) | ||
| Chemical | Concentration in Groundwater (ppb) | Comparison Value (ppb) | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vinyl Chloride | ND-6.7; 188.4* | 0.2 | EMEG (Chronic) Child |
| Benzene | ND-8 | 1 | CREG |
| Thallium | ND-8.91 (est.)** | 0.4 | LTHA |
| Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate | ND-4,100* | 3 | CREG |
| Sodium | ND-81,500 | 20,000 | USEPA Guidance Level |
| ND = not detected | ppb = parts per billion |
|---|---|
| (est.) = estimated concentration | * = hydropunch sample |
| * * = also detected in blank |
| Pathway Name | Source | Environmental Media | Point of Exposure | Route of Exposure | Exposed Population | Time |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public wells | HOD | Groundwater (municipal water supply) | Residences and Businesses (taps) | Ingestion, Inhalation, Dermal Contact | Consumers of municipal well number 4 (estimated number of potential receptors = 4,400) | Past, Present, Future |
| Private wells | HOD | Groundwater (private wells) | Residences (taps) | Ingestion | Consumers of sampled private wells (estimated number of potential receptors = 50) | Past, Present, Future |
| Pathway Name | Source | Environmental Media | Point of Exposure | Route of Exposure | Exposed Population | Time |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Biota | HOD | Biota | Sequoit Creek Wetlands | Ingestion | Fishermen, hunters, recreational users | Past, Present, Future |
| Surface Water | HOD | Surface Water | Sequoit Creek Wetlands | Dermal Contact, Ingestion | Fishermen, hunters, recreational users | Past, Present, Future |
| Sediment | HOD | Sediment | Sequoit Creek | Dermal Contact, Ingestion | Fishermen, hunters, recreational users, remediation personnel | Past, Present, Future |
| Soil Gas | HOD | Soil Gas | On- and off-site residences and buildings | Inhalation | Nearby residents, remediation personnel, trespassers | Past, Present, Future |

Figure 1. Location of HOD Landfill

Figure 2. Antioch Municipal Wells

Figure 5. Soil Boring Locations

Figure 6. Sequoit Industrial Park

Figure 7. Antioch Water System




