Skip directly to search Skip directly to A to Z list Skip directly to site content

HEALTH CONSULTATION
LIBBEY-OWENS FORD

(ALIASES: PILKINGTON NORTH AMERICA, INCORPORATED AND
OTTAWA TOWNSHIP FLAT GLASS SITE)
NAPLATE, LA SALLE COUNTY, ILLINOIS
EPA FACILITY ID: ILD005468616

BACKGROUND AND STATEMENT OF ISSUES

On January 15, 2003, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA), Region V, requested that the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) assist in evaluating whether soil contamination in the village of Naplate, Illinois poses an immediate health threat to residents. The contamination is the result of former glass manufacturing activities at the Libbey-Owens Ford (LOF) plant. LOF is owned and operated by Pilkington NorthAmerica, Inc.

The LOF is located near Naplate, adjacent to the City of Ottawa in LaSalle County, Illinois and lies both south and north of the Illinois River. The site is primarily located on the North side of the Illinois River, and consists of approximately 228 acres of land. The site has been used primarily for glass manufacturing since 1908. LOF has owned and operated the site since 1931. Prior owners and operators include Federal Plate Glass (1908-1921) and National Plate Glass (1921-1931). From 1908-1970 arsenic was used in the glass manufacturing process for grinding and polishing. The waste was deposited in on-site settling ponds and an on-site quarry. Arsenic as high as 2.7 mg/l has been detected in leachate from the waste disposal areas. The leachate isalso elevated in pH as high as 11.0 [1].


LAND USE

The LOF property is bordered by the village of Naplate (Population 600) to the North, an active quarry (owned and operated by U.S. Silica) to the west and a cemetery to the east, and the Illinois River to the south. The LOF property south of the Illinois River includes residential property to the southwest and northeast, undeveloped land and residential property to the south/southeast, and the Illinois River to the north/northwest. Cargill, Inc. owns a storage/loading operation between LOF's southern property line and the Illinois River [1].


ENVIRONMENTAL DATA

A large number of samples have been collected and analyzed both within the village of Naplate and on the LOF property. The arsenic concentration normal to the area ( "background") was determined by sampling an area not believed to be impacted by LOF operations. All samples collected during the investigation are compared to this background level. This is to decide if the yard or sample has normally occurring levels of arsenic, or if the levels detected indicate contamination related to LOF operations. In this case, background was determined by analyzing the surface soils of a 56 acre lot owned by Pilkington adjacent to a cemetery. Pilkington never used this area for any facility operations or processes. Thus it is undisturbed, as well as far removed from source areas. Approximately 20 locations were analyzed and background was determined to be about 10 ppm [1].

Overall 177 surface soil samples have been collected and analyzed in or near the village. Pilkington also collected 39 additional subsurface soil samples to investigate potential buried contamination. To review these data, see Appendix B.

Off-site (within the village of Naplate)

Since August 2002, LOF, in cooperation with US EPA, has collected and analyzed 137 surficial soil samples in 31 yards. The investigation identified two yards with arsenic levels which under certain exposure scenarios, could potentially impact the health of exposed residents [2].

To further investigate the two yards that have elevated surface soil levels of arsenic, subsurface soils were collected at 13 locations in and around the affected areas. Borings were drilled until the drill hit rock, generally at eight to nine feet below the surface of the ground. In all, 34 samples were taken with depth. The subsurface soil investigation was conducted because this area was originally a wetland that was filled in over time; the origin of the fill is unknown. Only one yard appeared to have contamination in subsurface soil. It had levels detected from background (10 ppm or less) to 44,800 ppm at 8.5 feet deep. This is the same yard that had the highest levels of arsenic in surface soil (up to 1530 ppm). The other yard, which had a maximum arsenic detection in surface soil of 401 ppm, did not show subsurface contamination [3]. Regardless, an action to remove contaminated soils from both yards is planned for early spring 2003. During removal, ambient monitoring would be warranted to ensure that arsenic is not being released in dust and impacting residents.

On-Site (on the property of LOF)

Pilkington has conducted soil investigations related to the investigation in Naplate twice since 2000. In September 2000 Pilkington took samples on its property only along its fenceline, at approximately 28 locations. Results were between background and 30 ppm. Some of the samples were taken adjacent to the Auxiliary Pond [1].

In fall 2002 Pilkington collected surface soil samples at six locations in undeveloped areas next to the Auxiliary Pond. The results did not reveal significant contamination. The highest detected concentration of arsenic was 22 ppm where, historically, leachate had seeped from disposal areas. Four deep borings were also taken adjacent to the Auxiliary Pond. The drill hit rock at between two and six feet. At two feet deep, the highest reading was 18.4 ppm. At six feet deep, the results were background (10 ppm) or below [1].

Other Data

ATSDR analized the residents urine and found arsenic levels to be within the general population's ranges (or background).1 Therefore, there were no recent unusual exposures to arsenic. Also, the soils are currently frozen and are not accessed, but may be once weather is warm.


DISCUSSION

In evaluating this site, the ATSDR Strike Team focused on the US EPA request to address the urgency of residential exposure to arsenic. The team based its response on the data and site conditions provided by US EPA. During the past year, 31 yards of approximately 200 homes located in the area of concern have been sampled [4]. Of these, two yards have had concentrations of arsenic that represent a potential health concern. The arsenic levels in the soil pose a hazard, but the urine measurements imply that nobody is exposed to that hazard. The remainder of this document will discuss arsenic, and whether or not the levels detected in residential yards could pose a threat to residents who live there.

Arsenic

Arsenic surface soil levels in the impacted area ranged from background to 1530 ppm. This concentration was compared to the ATSDR chronic EMEG. Environmental Media Evaluation Guides (EMEGs) are concentrations calculated from ATSDR Minimal Risk Levels (MRLs) by factoring in default body weights and ingestion rates. ATSDR chose the chronic EMEG because residential exposure is considered to be the most protective of long-term exposure. The assumptions used to calculate the EMEG are conservative and assume lifetime exposure [5].

The EMEG for exposure to contaminated surface soil is 20 ppm for children and 200 ppm for adults. The surface soil concentration of arsenic in the most impacted yard was 1530 ppm, which is 7.7 times the EMEG for adults and 77 times the EMEG for children. The other impacted yard had a maximum surface soil concentration of 401 ppm, which is 2 times the adult chronic EMEG and 20 times the child chronic EMEG [2,6].


ATSDR'S CHILD HEALTH INITIATIVE

ATSDR recognizes that the unique behavior of children makes them more vulnerable than adults to exposure from environmental contamination. As part of its Child Health Initiative, ATSDR is committed to evaluating the health impact of environmental contamination on children. The surface soil in the impacted area of Naplate may pose a health threat to children exposed to contaminated surface soils under certain exposure conditions.

Physical Hazards: ATSDR has not evaluated any physical hazards at this site.

US EPA Information Request: Do current levels of contaminants in residential soils pose a threat to human health?

Yes. Current levels of arsenic could pose a threat to adults and children living on the contaminated properties, especially during summer months when exposure is more likely.


CONCLUSIONS

  1. Surface soil samples in two yards are above health-based screening levels. Removal action is warranted.

  2. On-site and off-site sampling indicate that the contamination is concentrated in an isolated area that was once a wetland, and was filled with material from an unknown location over time.

  3. Dust containing arsenic is likely to be generated during the removal action, and during this process arsenic could become aerosolized.

RECOMMENDATIONS

  1. Pilkington North America, Inc. (with the oversight of US EPA) should remove impacted soils before late spring/summer 2003, when exposure to outdoor soils would again become likely.

  2. Pilkington North America, Inc. (with the oversight of US EPA) should continue to investigate additional leads to determine whether any other dumping locations exist in the community. Additional sampling may be warranted to investigate claims of additional dumping.

  3. Pilkington North America, Inc. (with the oversight of ATSDR), should collect dust samples from the interior of impacted homes to determine if there are arsenic levels of concern.

  4. Pilkington North America, Inc. (with the oversight of US EPA) should monitor ambient air for arsenic and silica during cleanup to ensure contaminated dust are not being generated at levels of health concern.

PREPARERS OF REPORT

Michelle A. Colledge
Environmental Health Scientist
Office of Regional Operations, Region 5
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry


Reviewed By:

Greg Zarus
Atmospheric Scientist/Strike Team Coordinator
Division of Health Assessment and Consultation
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry

Lourdes Rosales-Guevara
Physician
Division of Health Assessment and Consultation
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry

Wallace Sagendorph
Editor
Office of Policy and External Affairs
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry

Mike Patterson
Physician
Division of Health Assessment and Consultation
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry

Mark D. Johnson
Toxicologist
Office of Regional Operations, Region 5
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry

Don Joe
Section Chief- Petitions Coordinator
Division of Health Assessment and Consultation
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry


REFERENCES

  1. Hull and Associates. Work plan for the remedial investigation/feasibility study: Residential soils, Ottawa Township Flat Glass Site. Prepared for Pilkington North America, Inc., Toledo, Ohio. February 2002.

  2. US EPA. Data package of significant findings for surface soils. Provided to ATSDR Chicago, Illinois: Region 5 Superfund Division; January 2003.

  3. US EPA. Data package of significant findings for subsurface soils. Provided to ATSDR Chicago, Illinois: Region 5 Superfund Division; February 2003.

  4. Colledge, Michelle, ATSDR. Correspondence with Rod Miller (PNA) and Fred Bartman of USEPA. February 2003.

  5. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Public health assessment guidance manual. Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press, Inc.;1992.

  6. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Toxicological profile for arsenic. Atlanta: US Department of Health and Human Services; 2000.

APPENDIX A: AREA MAP

Site Map
Figure 1. Site Map

Aerial View Map
Figure 2. Aerial View Map

APPENDIX B: SUMMARY DATA TABLES

Table 1.

Arsenic surface soil results for area of concern and adjacent properties, August 2002-January 2003

Naplate surface soil investigation (ppm)1,2

ID # Range of Concentration Total # of samples Average concentration
SS 6 9.74-54.3 5 20.5
SS 7 9.14-401.0 8 129.3
SS 16 12.3-25.0 5 18.2
SS 18 9.02-44.4 5 18.3
SS 24 9.18-11.7 5 10.3
SS 25 17.5-1,530.0 14 417.5
SS 26 6.79-13.5 5 10.4
SS 27 2.9-13.1 4 6.6
SS 28 3.44-10.2 5 7.2
SS 29 5.13-7.06 5 6.1
SS 30 2.03-7.9 5 4.2
SS 31 3.45-5.91 5 4.5

1All results were reported in mg/kg of soil (parts per million, ppm)
2Highlighted concentrations were found in most impacted yards, which are adjacent to one another, surrounding yards had near or below background.


Table 2.

Subsurface soil results for impacted yards, January and February 2003
Boring Designation Results (mg/kg) Feet below the ground Sample Description Comments
SS-7-6 97.7 0.0-0.5 Topsoil, soft dark gray sandy SILT, trace sand, slightly moist, rootlets, non-plastic. Surface sample.
6.51 1.1-2.0 Topsoil, soft beige to gray sandy SILT, trace sand, slightly moist, rootlets, non-plastic. Shallow subsurface interval.
1.8 4.0-4.3 Beige to orange SANDSTONE fragments, trace possible brick fragments, slightly moist. The deeper of two primary soil units encountered by the boring. Laboratory may not be able to analyze rock.
SS-7-7 89.9 0.0-0.5 Topsoil, soft dark gray sandy SILT, trace clay, slightly moist, rock at 0.5 Surface sample.
6.21 1.1-2.2 Soft dark gray and black sandy SILT, trace gravel, slightly moist, few slag. Shallow subsurface interval.
6.15 5.7-6.5 Light beige and light gray SAND and sandstone fragments, few silt, slightly moist. Major deep interval.
2.7 8.5-9.25 Soft dark gray silty Sand, few sandstone fragments, trace clay, wet, iron stains. Base of soil boring near refusal.
SS-7-8 401 0.0-0.5 Topsoil, soft dark gray to black silty sand, slightly moist, rootlets, trace gravel. Surface sample.
7.43 1.0-2.0 Soft black silty SAND, trace gravel, weathered sandstone, burgundy zones, coal fragments, slightly moist. Apparent fill material, coal fragments.
4.66 4.0-5.0 Soft brown clayey SAND, few silt, moist, iron stains, coal fragments. Apparent fill, coal fragments.
3.37 8.0-8.25 Soft light beige to orange clayey SILT, few sand, very moist, weathered sandstone fragments and gravel, iron stains. Base of soil boring at refusal.
SS-25-6 252 0.0-0.5 Topsoil, soft black silty SAND Loam, slightly moist, trace gravel, trace red fragments, possibly brick. Surface sample.
1,660 4.0-4.5 Dark gray to burgundy ROCK/SLAG fragments. Apparent fill. Laboratory may have difficulty analyzing sample due to paucity of fines.
904 4.9-5.3 Soft black silty CLAY, slightly moist, plastic, trace gravel. Deepest recovery in boring.
SS-25-7 291 0.0-0.5 Topsoil, trace brick. Surface sample.
2,440 1.0-1.2 Soft dark gray SAND and GRAVEL, trace silt, slightly moist, possible brick fragments Shallow subsurface interval.
55.5 4.0-4.8 Soft dark beige to light gray SAND and GRAVEL, slightly moist, wood fragments. Major intermediate interval.
2.77 8.0-8.6 Soft light beige to orange clayey SILT, few sand, very moist, weathered sandstone fragments and gravel, iron stains. Near base of boring.
SS-25-8 1,190 0.0-0.5 Topsoil, soft dark gray silty SAND LOAM, trace gravel and sandstone fragments, slightly moist, glass fragments, rootlets. Surface sample.
1,040 1.0-2.0 Topsoil, soft dark gray silty SAND LOAM, trace gravel and sandstone fragments, slightly moist, glass fragments, rootlets. Shallow subsurface interval.
578 4.0-4.8 Soft dark gray silty SAND, trace gravel, moist, zones of beige sand. Intermediate depth in boring
5.36 8.0-9.0 Soft gray and orange silty CLAY, slightly moist, fragments and zones of weathered sandstone, iron stained, chert fragments. Deepest recovery in boring.
SS-25-13 1,530 0.0-0.5 Topsoil, sandy CLAY. Surface sample.
192 1.0-1.7 Dark gray soft silty CLAY, few sandstone fragments, slightly moist, glass fragments. Contains glass fragments.
596 4.0-4.5 Medium stiff friable beige to orange weathered SANDSTONE, slightly moist, glass fragments. Apparent fill material. Laboratory may not be able to analyze rock.
44,800 8.0-8.7 Soft gray silty SAND, trace gravel, slightly moist, green grains, burgundy grains, iron stains. Apparent fill material.
SS-25-14 16.3 0.0-0.5 Topsoil, dark gray CLAY. Surface sample.
9.36 1.0-2.0 Black soft silty SAND, trace clay, slightly moist, non-plastic, red fragments, possibly brick. Shallow subsurface interval.
3.34 4.9-5.9 Soft black clayey SILT/silty SAND, slightly moist, weathered sandstone fragments, slightly plastic, chert fragments Intermediate depth in boring.
2.09 8.0-8.5 Soft dark gray clayey SILT, few sand, very moist, possible brick fragments and weathered sandstone fragments. Possible fill material, deep portion of boring.
SS-27-1 13.1 0.0-0.5 Soft black topsoil, SAND LOAM, rootlets, slightly moist. Surface sample.
22.6 0.5-1.0 Soft dark gray to black SAND LOAM, rootlets, slightly moist. Shallow subsurface interval.
9.72 4.0-5.1 Soft beige clayey SILT, little sand, chert fragments, slightly moist, iron stains, sandstone fragments. Deepest recovery in boring.
SS-27-2 5.53 0.0-0.5 Topsoil, soft black SILT LOAM, trace medium sand, rootlets, slightly moist. Surface sample.
1.41 1.0-2.0 Soft dark gray silty SAND, trace clay, slightly moist, trace granite fragments. Shallow subsurface interval.
3.4 2.0-2.5 Soft black sandy SILT, slightly moist, chunk of coal, slag. Apparent fill material.
SS-27-3 4.91 0.0-0.5 Soft black sandy SILT, trace gravel, very moist. Surface sample.
9.93 0.8-1.4 Dark silty CLAY, little sand, slightly moist, slightly plastic, trace gravel, possible brick fragments. Shallow subsurface interval.
2.24 8.0-9.0 Soft light gray to light beige silty CLAY, trace sand, slightly moist, chunks of weathered sandstone and chert, possible brick fragments, slightly plastic. Deepest recovery in boring, possible fill material.
SS-27-4 2.9 0.0-0.5 Topsoil, soft dark gray SILT LOAM, slightly moist, rootlets. Surface sample.
4.01 1.8-3.0 Gray soft SAND, few gravel, traces of cinders and brick fragments, slightly moist Apparent fill material.
5.54 5.5-6.3 Soft beige and orange silty CLAY, little sand and sandstone fragments, iron stains, slightly moist, medium plastic. Distinct, relatively thick soil interval.
0.31 9.0-10 Medium stiff light gray silty SAND, slightly moist, iron stained. Deepest recovery in boring.
SS-29-6 7.45 0.0-0.5 Topsoil, dark gray soft clayey SILT, slightly moist, slightly plastic, rootlets, trace sand. Surface sample.
12.2 1.2-1.4 Red to pink SAND and ROCK. Unusual color. Laboratory may have difficulty analyzing due to paucity of fines.
9.99 4.0-5.1 Soft black sandy SILT, trace clay, slightly moist, non-plastic. Relatively deep part of boring.
< 0.876 5.1-6.0 Soft light gray and beige SILT, little weathered sandstone fragments, slightly moist, iron stains. Deepest recovery in boring, near refusal.

Samples reported in mg/kg (ppm)
Data table received from US EPA, Region 5 in February 2003


1 ATSDR, Exposure Investigation of Libbey-Owens Ford, Naplate 2002. Report Pending


Table of Contents

  
 
USA.gov: The U.S. Government's Official Web PortalDepartment of Health and Human Services
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, 4770 Buford Hwy NE, Atlanta, GA 30341
Contact CDC: 800-232-4636 / TTY: 888-232-6348

A-Z Index

  1. A
  2. B
  3. C
  4. D
  5. E
  6. F
  7. G
  8. H
  9. I
  10. J
  11. K
  12. L
  13. M
  14. N
  15. O
  16. P
  17. Q
  18. R
  19. S
  20. T
  21. U
  22. V
  23. W
  24. X
  25. Y
  26. Z
  27. #