PUBLIC HEALTH ASSESSMENT
PARSONS CASKET HARDWARE COMPANY
BELVIDERE, BOONE COUNTY, ILLINOIS
Figure 1. Parson's Casket Hardware Site
Figure 2. Summary of Historical Site Conditions
Figure 3. Parson's Casket Hardware
Figure 5. TCE Concentration Contour
Figure 6. PCE Concentration Contours
| ORGANIC COMPOUND | FREQUENCY OF DETECTION | RANGE | COMPARISON VALUE | COMPARISON SOURCE |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| benzene | 11/55 | 0.07J-85 | 1.0 | CREG |
| 1,1-dichloroethane | 34/55 | 0.1J-220D | NA | NA |
| 1,2-dichloroethane | 2/55 | 1J | 0.4 | CREG |
| 1,1-dichloroethylene | 24/55 | 0.06J-14 | 0.06 | CREG |
| 1,2-dichloroethylene (total) | 36/55 | 0.1J-1,000D | 70 | MCL |
| chlorethane | 3/55 | 4DJ-12 | NA | NA |
| chloromethane | 3/55 | 0.3J-180 | 3 | LTHA |
| tetrachloroethylene | 31/55 | 0.1J-130 | 0.7 | CREG |
| 1,1,1-trichloroethane | 45/55 | 0.07-370D | 200 | LTHA |
| 1,1,2-trichloroethane | 5/55 | 0.4DJ-34D | 0.6 | CREG |
| trichloroethylene | 43/55 | 0.05J-740D | 3 | CREG |
| vinyl chloride | 5/55 | 0.9J-100 | 0.7 | EMEG |
| NA - comparison values not available J - estimated value D - value measured from diluted sample | ||||
| ELEMENT | FREQUENCY OF DETECTION | RANGE | COMPARISON VALUE | COMPARISON SOURCE |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| aluminum | 21/100 | 26.7-13,800 | NA | NA |
| arsenic | 22/100 | 0.4J-38J | 0.02 | CREG |
| calcium | 100/100 | 22,200-1,000,000 | NA | NA |
| cobalt | 11/100 | 6.1-13.2J | NA | NA |
| cyanide | 7/70 | 3.1-367 | 200 | LTHA |
| iron | 41/100 | 14.5-22,300 | NA | NA |
| lead | 28/100 | 1.2J-60.7 | 7.5 | ILGWS |
| magnesium | 100/100 | 8,960-180,000 | NA | NA |
| manganese | 83/100 | 2.5-2,060 | 200 | RMEG |
| nickel | 42/100 | 8J-736 | 100 | LTHA |
| potassium | 71/100 | 1,150-18,100 | NA | NA |
| sodium | 100/100 | 2,670-219,000 | NA | NA |
| NA - comparison values not available J - estimated value D - value measured from diluted sample | ||||
| CHEMICAL | FREQUENCY OF DETECTION | RANGE | COMPARISON VALUE | COMPARISON SOURCE |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| acenaphthalene | 6/19 | 53J-120J | NA | NA |
| arsenic | 30/31 | 1.3J-11.9 mg/kg* | 0.5* | CREG |
| benz(g,h,i)perylene | 10/19 | 80J-1,200 | NA | NA |
| benzo(a)anthracene | 13/19 | 45J-2,300 | NA | NA |
| benzo(a)pyrene | 13/19 | 52J-2,000 | 100 | CREG |
| benzo(b)fluoranthene | 14/19 | 62J-3,100E | NA | NA |
| benzo(k)fluoranthene | 11/19 | 51J-1,100 | NA | NA |
| carbazole | 4/19 | 82DJ-340J | NA | NA |
| chrysene | 15/19 | 47J-2,700 | NA | NA |
| dibenzo(a,h)anthracene | 4/19 | 120J-450 | NA | NA |
| dibenzofuran | 5/19 | 39J-72J | NA | NA |
| indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene | 12/19 | 22J-1,400 | NA | NA |
| lead | 31/31 | 5J-1,520 mg/kg* | NA | NA |
| 2-methyl naphthalene | 5/19 | 49J-340J | NA | NA |
| phenanthrene | 14/19 | 57J-1,600 | NA | NA |
| NA - no comparison values available J - estimated value E - estimated value, calibration range exceeded * values in milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) or parts per million (ppm) | ||||
| Pathway Name | Source | Medium | Exposure Point | Exposure Route | Receptor Population | Time of Exposure | Exposure Activities | Estimated Number Exposed | Chemicals |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| On-site Surface Soil | Parson's Casket | Surface Soil | Surface Soil | Ingestion Inhalation | Workers Trespassers | Past Future | Contacting contaminated material | 25 | Table 3 |
| Pathway Name | Source | Medium | Exposure Point | Exposure Route | Receptor Population | Time of Exposure | Exposure Activities | Estimated Number Exposed | Chemicals |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Off-site Surface Water | Parson's Casket & Unknown Source | Water & Sediments | Kishwaukee River | Inhalation Ingestion Dermal | Persons using the river | Past Present Future | Wading Swimming Fishing | 100 | Tables 1 & 2 |
| Off-site Ground- Water | Parson's Casket & Unknown Source | Groundwater | Private Wells | Inhalation Ingestion Dermal | Persons using private well water | Future | Bathing Showering Cooking, etc. | 50 | Tables 1 & 2 |
ATTACHMENT 1
Comparison Values Used In Screening Contaminants For Further Evaluation
Environmental Media Evaluation Guides (EMEGs) are developed for chemicals based on theirtoxicity, frequency of occurrence at National Priority List (NPL) sites, and potential for humanexposure. They are derived to protect the most sensitive populations and are not action levels, butrather comparison values. They do not consider carcinogenic effects, chemical interactions,multiple route exposure, or other media-specific routes of exposure, and are very conservativeconcentration values designed to protect sensitive members of the population.
Reference Dose Media Evaluation Guides (RMEGs) are another type of comparison valuederived to protect the most sensitive populations. They do not consider carcinogenic effects,chemical interactions, multiple route exposure, or other media-specific routes of exposure, andare very conservative concentration values designed to protect sensitive members of thepopulation.
Cancer Risk Evaluation Guides (CREGs) are estimated contaminant concentrations based on aprobability of one excess cancer in a million persons exposed to a chemical over a lifetime.These are also very conservative values designed to protect sensitive members of the population.
Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) have been established by USEPA for public watersupplies to reduce the chances of adverse health effects from contaminated drinking water. Thesestandards are well below levels for which health effects have been observed and take intoaccount the financial feasibility of achieving specific contaminant levels. These are enforceablelimits that public water supplies must meet.
Lifetime Health Advisories for drinking water (LTHAs) have been established by USEPA fordrinking water and are the concentration of a chemical in drinking water that is not expected tocause any adverse non-carcinogenic effects over a lifetime of exposure. These are conservativevalues that incorporate a margin of safety.
