PUBLIC HEALTH ASSESSMENT
SAUGET AREA 1 - DEAD CREEK
SAUGET AREA 1 - DEAD CREEK AREA G (SAUGET I)
SAUGET AREA 1 - DEAD CREEK SEGMENT A
SAUGET, ST. CLAIR COUNTY, ILLINOIS
Sauget Area 1 is a proposed National Priorities List site. The Illinois Department of PublicHealth (IDPH) has prepared this public health assessment to evaluate the various sites of SaugetArea 1, including Dead Creek. In May 1995, The Agency for Toxic Substances and DiseaseRegistry (ATSDR) issued a health consultation prepared by IDPH for Sauget Area 1. Thiscurrent public health assessment will address activities since the 1995 health consultation.
The Area 1 Sauget Sites consist of Sites G, H, I, L, M, N, and Dead Creek. Sites G, H, and I areborrow pits that were filled with a variety of wastes including chemicals. Site L is a holdingpond used for wash water from cleaning trucks used to haul hazardous wastes. Site M is aborrow pit that filled with water. Site N is an excavated area partly filled with constructiondebris. Dead Creek runs from Site I at Creek Segment A (CS-A), flows south through Sauget andCahokia, drains into the Old Prairie DuPont spillway, and then enters the Mississippi River.
IDPH has concluded that Sauget Sites Area 1, in Sauget, Illinois, poses a public health hazardbecause long-term exposure to ambient air and eating fish from Borrow Pit Lake could result inadverse health effects. The source of dioxins, 1,1-dichloroethene, and methylene chloride inambient air is presently not known. Results from sampling and analysis of fish before theremediation of Borrow Pit Lake sediments suggest the possibility of developmental healtheffects in children who routinely eat contaminated fish from this site. At the time of completingthis health assessment (December 2003), no post-remediation fish data were available. IDPH hasrecommended that additional fish sampling and analysis be conducted by USEPA. IDPH willreview that data when it becomes available.
Prior to remediation of creek sediments and the fencing of some sites, exposure to elevatedlevels of some contaminants may have occurred. Exposure to site-related chemicals in surface water, sediments, and soil would not be expected to result in adverse health effects.
IDPH has also recommended that additional air sampling be conducted, and that the responsible parties maintain restricted access to Creek Segment B and Site M.
The Sauget Area 1 site was proposed for addition to the National Priorities List on September13, 2001. In May 1995, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) issueda health consultation prepared by the Illinois Department of Public Health (IDPH) for SaugetArea 1. The conclusions and recommendations of that health consultation can be found inAttachment 1. This public health assessment will address site sampling and activities that have occurred since the 1995 health consultation.
Sauget is in St. Clair County, Illinois south of East St. Louis and across the Mississippi Riverfrom St. Louis, Missouri. Sauget is surrounded by several large industries and has many areas ofenvironmental contamination. These contaminated areas are collectively known as the SaugetSites. The Sauget Sites are divided into two areas, Area 1 and Area 2. The general dividing linebetween Areas 1 and 2 is Illinois Route 3, with all sites east of Route 3 belonging to Area 1 andthose to the west, except Dead Creek Segment F, in Area 2 (Figure 1).
The separate sites in Sauget Area 1 are designated by letters. Dead Creek runs through Area 1,and has been divided into six segments. Information about each of these sites is provided below.
Site G
Site G is in Sauget and is bordered by Queeny Avenue to the north, Dead Creek to the east, acultivated field to the south, and Wiese Engineering to the west. Site G was a subsurface disposalarea that covered approximately 5 acres (Figure 2).
The chain-link fence around Site G was originally constructed in May 1987 in response to highlevels of volatile organic chemicals (VOCs) in surface soils. In 1995, the U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency (USEPA) removed surface wastes and soils, solidified open oil pits, andcovered part of the site with a soil cap (1). The depth of the soil cap varies from 1.5 to 2 feet.
Site H
Site H was also a subsurface disposal area in Sauget just south and west of the intersection ofQueeny Avenue and Falling Springs Road. The site covers approximately 5 acres (Figure 2). Atone time, the site was connected to Site I. Presently, Site H is level and vegetated. Drainage istoward Dead Creek, which is west of the site. Access to this site is not restricted.
Site I
Site I covers approximately 20 acres on the eastern side of the Cerro Copper Products property(Figure 2). The site is just north and east of the intersection of Queeny Avenue and FallingSprings Road in Sauget. Site I runs along the eastern border of Creek Segment A and was thesite of a sand and gravel borrow pit. The pit was filled and then covered and graded. A chain-linkfence and a guard at the main gate restrict access to the site.
Site L
Site L is a former surface impoundment used to dispose of rinse water from truck cleaningoperations of a hazardous waste hauler (Figure 2). The impoundment was about 70 feet by 150feet in size and was 500 feet south of Queeny Avenue and approximately 125 feet east of DeadCreek in Cahokia. The site is level, covered with black cinders, and is being used to store heavyequipment. Access to the site is not restricted.
Site M
Site M is a pit just east of Dead Creek Segment B, approximately 300 feet north of Judith Lane(Figure 2). Site M is a borrow pit that was excavated in the 1940s by H. H. Hall Construction(3). It is approximately 275 feet by 350 feet in size and is 40 feet deep. It is filled with water andis connected to Dead Creek Segment B by a drainage way that is approximately 8 feet wide. SiteM has no visible signs of chemical dumping. It is surrounded by a chain-link fence that alsoencompasses Dead Creek Segment B.
Site N
Site N was a borrow pit in the 1940s and was filled with concrete rubble, scrap wood, and otherdemolition debris (1). The site covers about 5 acres and is west of Dead Creek Segment C, eastof Falling Springs Road, north of Judith Lane, and south of Edwards Street (Figure 2) (3). Site Nis no longer in use and is fenced.
Dead Creek Segments A, B, C, D, E, and F
Dead Creek Segment A (CS-A) is due west of Site I on Cerro Copper Products property inSauget (Figure 2). No wastes are currently being discharged into CS-A. CS-A no longerdischarges to the lower segments of the creek due to the blocking of a culvert under QueenyAvenue in the 1970s. Cerro Copper remediated CS-A in 1990 and 1991.
Creek Segment B (CS-B) is just south of CS-A between Queeny Avenue and Judith Lane. Figure 3 shows the features of CS-B. Part of CS-B is in Sauget and the other part is in Cahokia. Theculverts at both Queeny Avenue and Judith Lane have been blocked to prevent the contaminationin the creek from flowing into the southern portion of the creek. A chain-link fence that USEPAoriginally installed in 1982 encompasses CS-B. CS-B was remediated in 2001.
Dead Creek Segments C through F are those portions of the creek south of Judith Lane. Thesesegments run through Cahokia, a wetland called Borrow Pit Lake, and then empty into thePrairie DuPont Floodway. The floodway then discharges to the Mississippi River. The creek iswider in these sections than it is in CS-B. In the southern section of CS-E, the Parks Collegearea, the creek runs underground. It resurfaces briefly at the intersection of Route 157 andFalling Springs Road, turns west through a series of culverts, and drains into a wetland area westof Route 3. Access to these sections of the creek are unrestricted and it runs through residentialareas. Creek segments C, D, E, and F were remediated in 2001.
1995 Sauget Area 1 Health Consultation
On May 8, 1995, ATSDR issued a health consultation prepared by IDPH for Sauget Area 1. Theconclusions and recommendations were based on the conditions and data available at that time.IDPH concluded that Area 1 posed a public health hazard based on chronic exposure tocontaminated sediments in Dead Creek. Persons could also be exposed to contaminants near SiteG and to groundwater contamination near Dead Creek Segment B. IDPH recommended theremediation of contaminated Dead Creek sediments, remediation of Site G, restrictedgroundwater use, restricted access to contaminated areas, flood control, and more sampling tobetter characterize the extent of the contamination. The conclusions and recommendations fromthe 1995 health consultation can be found in Attachment 1.
The population within a 1-mile radius of Area 1 is about 11,400 persons and includes all of Sauget, and portions of East St. Louis and Cahokia.
Site Visit
IDPH made several site visits, the most recent on October 2, 2003. At that time, contaminatedDead Creek sediments had been remediated. Trees along Dead Creek were removed during thesediment removal, particularly at CS-B. Site G, CS-B, Site M, CS-A and Site I were all fenced.
Sampling Activities Since 1995
Sampling activities since the May 8, 1995 health consultation include:
- magnetometer (buried scrap metal/drums) and soil gas surveys of sites G, H, I, L, and N,
- waste samples at Sites G, H, I, L, and N,
- upgradient and down gradient groundwater samples at Sites G, H, I, and L,
- surface water and sediment samples from Creek Segments B, C, D, E, and F, Site M, theBorrow Pit, and the Old Prairie DuPont Creek,
- biological/ecological samples, and
- air samples (1).
Remedial projects have occurred at Site G, Site M, and Creek Segments B through F. A total of748 samples were collected, not including magnetometer and soil gas samples. In addition, anecological and a human health risk assessment have been conducted for the site (2,3).
On-site Surface Soil
On-site surface soil samples were collected from Sites G, H, I, L and N. This sampling consistedof four samples at each site collected between 0 and 6 inches in depth. In addition, a compositesample was collected from 0 to 2 feet below the bottom of the fill material. These borings wereanalyzed for VOCs, semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs), pesticides, total polychlorinatedbiphenyls (PCBs), inorganic chemicals, and dioxins (expressed as 2,3,7,8-TCDD equivalents).Soil samples were collected from the perimeter of the sites to determine the extent ofcontamination.
Residential and Undeveloped Area Surface Soil Samples
Surface and subsurface soil samples were collected from 45 residential and undeveloped areas inSauget and northern Cahokia. Surface samples were collected from the surface to a depth of 0.5feet, while the subsurface soil samples were collected between 3 and 6 feet in depth. Figure 4 shows the location of the surface soil samples. Surface and subsurface soil samples wereanalyzed for dioxins, PCBs, inorganics, VOCs, SVOCs, and pesticides. All surface samples andfour of the forty-five subsurface samples were analyzed for dioxins and furans.
Groundwater
Groundwater samples were collected from shallow and deep aquifers near the fill areas includingSites G, H, I, and L and residential areas. Eighty-eight groundwater samples were associatedwith Sites G, H, I, and L. Fifteen groundwater samples were collected from two residential wellsand four non-potable domestic wells in the residential areas.
Surface Water
Surface water samples were collected from Dead Creek, Site M, the Borrow Pit Lake, OldPrairie DuPont Creek and four background areas. Three samples were collected at CreekSegments B, D and F for a total of nine samples. One sample was collected from CS-E andanother from Site M. Two samples were collected from the Old Prairie DuPont Creek.
Sediments
Sediment samples were collected before and after removal of contaminated sediments. Sampleswere collected from Creek Segments B, C, D, E and F, Site M, Reference Area and Old PrairieDuPont Creek before the removal action. After the removal action, 106 clearance samples werecollected from Creek Segments B, C, D, E, and F, and Site M. PCBs were analyzed in allclearance sediment samples. Not all clearance sediment samples were analyzed for all chemicals.
Air Sampling
Air samples were collected from thirteen locations. Different sampling media were used tocollect different chemicals. All air samples were collected over a 24-hour period. Two sampleswere collected upwind and two samples were collected downwind from Site G. Three upwindand six downwind samples, two at each site, were collected from Sites H, I, and L. The locationsof the air samples are shown in Figure 3.
Fish
Seven fish fillet samples were collected from white crappie, white bass, and largemouth bass.The samples were analyzed for PCBs, dioxins and furans, VOCs, SVOCs, inorganic chemicals,and pesticides. All fish fillet samples were collected from the Borrow Pit Lake.
IDPH compared the results of the maximum levels detected in the environmental samples withappropriate screening comparison values to select chemicals for further evaluation forcarcinogenic and non-carcinogenic health effects. Chemicals found at levels greater thancomparison values or those for which no comparison values exist were selected for furtherevaluation. A brief explanation of each comparison value used is found in Attachment 2.
Soil
On-site Samples
The chemicals of interest identified in on-site surface soil samples from sites G, H, I, L, and Ninclude dioxins, total PCBs, arsenic, cadmium, lead, thallium, heptachlor epoxide, six polycyclicaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and carbazole (Table 1). Site G surface soil only had arsenic at alevel that exceeded the soil comparison value, presumably because clean surface soil wasbrought onto the site during the 1995 remedial activities.
Residential and Undeveloped Soils
The chemicals of interest in surface and subsurface soil in the residential and undevelopedsections of Area 1 include dioxins, arsenic, thallium, nine PAHs, and two pesticides (Table 2).
Groundwater
Seventy chemicals of interest were identified in the groundwater samples collected fromresidential wells and groundwater at Sites G, H. I, and L (Table 3). IDPH used drinking watercomparison values to select chemicals of interest in groundwater.
Surface Water
Twenty-three chemicals of interest were found in the surface water samples collected from DeadCreek Segments B, D, E, and F, Site M, Old Prairie DuPont Creek, and background referenceareas (Table 4). Dioxins are of interest because they were detected in the samples, but theycannot be further evaluated since the laboratory detection limit exceeded the comparison value.
Sediments
The chemicals of interest in creek sediments were selected from samples before removalactivities (Table 5) and after removal activities (Table 6). All the chemicals of interest identifiedin the pre-removal sediments were also chemicals of interest in the post removal sediments, butgenerally at lower levels.
Air
Review of the results of eight downwind and five upwind air samples yielded twenty chemicalsof interest (Table 7). The location of the upwind sample at Site I was downwind of Sites G, H,and L. The Site G sample was directly across Queeny Avenue from the upwind sample for Site I.Seven of the twenty samples had higher levels of the chemicals of interest in samples upwind ofArea 1. The source of the chemicals in the upwind samples is not known. The selection of thesesampling locations makes it difficult to determine the source of the chemicals of interest, butexposure to these chemicals can still be estimated.
Fish
Twelve chemicals of interest were identified in the fish fillets from Borrow Pit Lake includingdioxins, five metals, four pesticides, and two phthalates (Table 8).
Exposure to a chemical at a level that exceeds a comparison value does not necessarily mean thatadverse health effects will result. The potential for exposed persons to experience adverse health effects depends on:
- how much of each chemical a person is exposed to,
- how long a person is exposed, and
- the health condition of the exposed person.
People can be affected by a chemical only if they contact it through an exposure pathway at asufficient concentration to cause a toxic effect. This requires a source of exposure, anenvironmental transport medium, a point of exposure, a route of exposure, and a receptorpopulation. A pathway is complete if all of its components are present and if people wereexposed in the past, are currently exposed, or will be exposed in the future. If parts of a pathwayare absent, data are insufficient to decide whether it is complete, or exposure may occur at sometime (past, present, future), then it is a potential pathway. If part of a pathway is not present andwill never exist, the pathway is incomplete and can be eliminated from further consideration.Completed exposure pathways are shown in Table 9 and potential exposure pathways are shown in Table 10. Table 11 shows the population near various Area 1 sites.
Air
Exposures were calculated for the chemicals of interest in air. The benzo(a)pyrene toxicityequivalency factor (TEF) was used for acenaphthylene, fluorene, and fluoranthene and thesevalues were added together to estimate exposure.
Exposure was estimated for a 10-year-old child resident, an adult resident, and an adult workerbreathing the chemicals of interest in the air. Exposures were calculated using the upwind anddownwind maximum values for each chemical.
Based on the exposure scenarios, dioxins in air may increase the risk of non-cancer adversehealth effects over a long period for children and adults residing near Queeny Avenue andworkers on these sites and in nearby industries. A moderate increased cancer risk may beassociated with exposure to methylene chloride and 1,1-dichloroethene in air.
Creek Sediments
Sample results from 1999 showed that Dead Creek sediments contained elevated levels ofdioxins, PCBs and arsenic. Dead Creek Segment B had the highest levels of these chemicals.Segment B is fenced, so exposure to the highest levels of contaminants is not likely. Samples insegments further downstream showed a decrease in the levels of chemicals.
An exposure scenario for a child playing in the creek four days per week, 26 weeks per year for amaximum of five years indicated that there would be no apparent increased risk of cancer forpast exposure to creek sediments.
Remediation of Dead Creek sediments occurred in 2000 and 2001. After remediation, the levelsof PCBs and arsenic decreased. Based on the above exposure scenario, exposure to creeksediments would cause no increased risk of cancer. Exposure to dioxins would not be expectedto cause adverse health effects if children are exposed over a long period. No other chemicals increek sediments would be expected to cause adverse health effects.
Surface Water
Surface water samples were collected before the remediation of the creek sediments. Elevatedlevels of benzene and PCBs were found in the 1999 surface water sampling. Based on the sameexposure scenario used for children playing in creek sediments, no increased risk of cancerwould be expected. No non-cancer health effects would be expected from exposure to surfacewater in Dead Creek.
Fish
Results for fish are based on sampling that occurred before remediation of the creek sediments.Elevated levels of dioxins were found in fish from Borrow Pit Lake. To determine whetheradverse health effects might occur from eating fish from Borrow Pit Lake, we used an exposurescenario of children and adults eating 0.25 pounds of fish per week for 26 weeks per year.
Based on the above exposure scenarios, elevated levels of dioxins may increase the risk of non-cancer adverse health effects over a long period. Arsenic was found in only one of the fishsamples. Based on our exposure scenarios, no increased risk of cancer would be expected fromeating arsenic in fish caught in Borrow Pit Lake. Because of remediation, current levels ofcontaminants in fish may be less than the values found in the 1999 sampling.
Surface Soil
Forty-five samples were collected in residential and undeveloped areas surrounding the sites.Levels of arsenic, PAHs, and dioxins exceeded comparison values. Based on an exposurescenario of young children playing 5 days per week, 35 weeks per year for a maximum of 5years, no apparent increased risk of cancer would be expected. No non-cancer health effectswould be expected for children exposed to surface soil in these areas.
For adults, an exposure scenario of 5 days per week, 35 weeks per year for 30 years would resultin no apparent increased risk of cancer. No non-cancer health effects would be expected foradults exposed to surface soil in these areas.
On-site Surface Soil
Site I is fenced and not accessible to trespassers. Site G was remediated in 1995 and has a cap of1 to 2 feet of clean soil.
In sites H and L elevated levels of PCBs, PAHs, heptachlor epoxide, and arsenic were found insurface soil samples. An exposure scenario of a young child playing 1 day per week, 18 weeksper year for a maximum of 5 years was used.
Based on this exposure scenario, a child would have no apparent increased risk of cancer fromplaying in contaminated soil. No non-cancer adverse health effects would be expected fromexposure to the on-site surface soil.
On-site Contamination
Exposure to chemicals in on-site soil could occur during remediation or otherwise disturbingsubsurface soil, waste, and groundwater. Workers remediating site-related contaminants should wear protective clothing as required by the U.S. Department of Labor. Appropriate containmentshould be used during any further remediation activity to ensure that dust and site-relatedcontaminants do not affect nearby residential areas.
Residential Groundwater
In residential areas, only one well had an elevated level of PCBs; however, because of a localordinance, wells are not used as a source of drinking water. All areas are connected to the publicwater supply.
Industrial areas to the north had elevated levels of several chemicals, including VOCs. If thiscontamination moves toward residential areas, their groundwater may be affected in the future.
The estimated exposure doses were compared with health guidelines for non-cancer healtheffects. Cancer risks were estimated for those chemicals that are known or suspectedcarcinogens. From these estimates, IDPH found an increased risk of non-cancer adverse healtheffects in children from exposure to dioxins in fish from Borrow Pit Lake. No increased risk ofcancer would be expected from exposure to site-related contaminants. The source of 1,1-dichloroethene and methylene chloride in ambient air is not known.
Dioxins
The level of dioxins found in fish was greater than the minimal risk level (MRL) for children.Exceeding the MRL does not mean that adverse health effects will occur. The MRL for dioxinsis based on a study where monkeys were exposed to levels similar to the estimated dose fordioxins in fish based on the 1999 sampling. These monkeys exhibited altered developmental andsocial behavior when exposed to this level of dioxins. Human studies have not suggested similardevelopmental effects from exposure to the level of dioxins found in fish from Borrow Pit Lake.In addition, because the only available fish data were collected before the remediation activitiesoccurred, the level of dioxins in fish may have decreased.
1,1-Dichloroethene
Based on our exposure scenario, breathing 1,1-dichloroethene in ambient air may cause anincreased risk of cancer. USEPA has determined that 1,1-dichloroethene is a possible humancarcinogen. Studies on workers who breathed 1,1-dichloroethene have not shown an increase incancer. These studies, however, are not conclusive because of the small numbers of workers andthe short time studied. Animal studies have shown mixed results. Several studies reported anincrease in tumors in rats and mice, and other studies reported no such effects.
Methylene Chloride
Based on our exposure scenario, breathing methylene chloride in ambient air may cause anincreased risk of cancer. Human studies are not conclusive; however, an increased cancer riskwas seen in mice breathing large amounts of methylene chloride for a long period.
USEPA has determined that methylene chloride is a probable cancer-causing agent in humans.The World Health Organization has determined that methylene chloride may cause cancer inhumans. The Department of Health and Human Services has determined that methylene chloridecan be reasonably anticipated to be a cancer-causing chemical.
Could exposure to creek sediments harm my child?
Exposure to contaminants in sediment in Dead Creek Segments C, D, E, and F would not beexpected to cause adverse health effects in children. Dead Creek Segment B is fenced and notaccessible. Currently, exposure to the levels of chemicals in creek sediments would not beexpected to cause adverse health effects in children contacting the sediments. Still, childrenshould be discouraged from playing in the creek because by doing so, they would beunnecessarily exposed to not only chemical contaminants, but to possible bacteriological andviral pathogens.
Before sediment removal in 2001, long-term exposures to sediments in all creek segments mayhave increased the risk of adverse health effects associated with dioxins and may have posed alow increased risk of cancer due to PCBs.
Is the flooding from Dead Creek contaminating our yards?
Contaminated sediments may have been deposited in yards during past flood events. Thecontribution of flood water to residential soil contamination is not known; however, no adversehealth effects would be expected from exposure to the levels of chemicals detected in residentialyards. Now that creek sediments have been remediated, future flooding should not be a hazard.
Can I use the groundwater to wash my car or water my garden?
Groundwater should not be used to wash cars or water gardens because groundwatercontamination may be present in residential areas. In accordance with local ordinances,groundwater is not to be used as drinking water in either Sauget or Cahokia.
Public Comments
This public health assessment was made available for public comment from December 18, 2002 to April 11, 2003. No public comments were received.
IDPH recognizes that children are especially sensitive to some contaminants. IDPH evaluatedchildren's exposure to contaminants to determine whether adverse health effects would beexpected. Based on animal studies, developmental effects could occur in children who routinelyeat fish from Borrow Pit Lake that contain elevated levels of dioxins. Parents should follow theproper fish cooking and cleaning guidelines in the Illinois Fishing Information publication fromthe Department of Natural Resources to reduce exposure to contaminants in fish. Thispublication can be obtained by calling 217-782-7498. No other site-related contaminants would be expected to cause adverse health effects in children.
IDPH concludes that the Area 1 Sauget Sites pose a public health hazard because long-termexposure to ambient air and fish from Borrow Pit Lake could result in adverse health effects.Sources of dioxins, 1,1-dichloroethene, and methylene chloride in ambient air are not known.Data from fish samples obtained before the remediation of sediments in Borrow Pit Lake suggestthe possibility of developmental health effects in children who routinely eat contaminated fishfrom this site. Fish sampling and analysis have not been done since remediation of Borrow PitLake sediments was completed.
Prior to remediation of creek sediments and the fencing of some sites, exposure to elevatedlevels of some contaminants may have occurred. Current exposures to site-related chemicals insurface water, unfenced sediments, and soil would not be expected to result in adverse health effects.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND PUBLIC HEALTH ACTION PLAN
IDPH recommends that:
- USEPA collect additional air samples near Sites G, H, I, and L to determine if VOClevels are elevated. The source of these chemicals should be determined and proper background samples collected.
- The responsible parties maintain restricted access to Creek Segment B and Site M.
- USEPA perform additional fish sampling to determine if the levels of dioxins in fishhave decreased since the completion of remediation activities.
Preparer
David R. Webb, M.S.
Environmental Toxicologist
Illinois Department of Public Health
Reviewers
Jennifer Davis
Ken Runkle
Environmental Toxicologists
Illinois Department of Public Health
ATSDR Regional Representative
Mark Johnson
Regional Operations
Office of the Assistant Administrator
ATSDR Technical Project Officers
Allen Robison
Division of Health Assessment and Consultation
Sylvia Allen-Lewis
Division of Health Education and Promotion
Steve Inserra
Division of Health Studies
- Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis, Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study, SaugetArea 1, Sauget and Cahokia, Illinois. Roux Associates, Inc., Rev. 1, June 8, 2001.
- Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis, Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study, VolumeII, Human Health Risk Assessment, Sauget Area 1, Sauget and Cahokia, Illinois. Part B, ENSR International, Rev. 1, June 8, 2001.
- Ecology and Environment, Inc. DRAFT Remedial Investigation Dead Creek Project Sitesat Cahokia/Sauget, Illinois. Volumes 1 & 2. March 1988.
- United States Environmental Protection Agency. Provisional Guidance for QuantitativeRisk Assessment of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons, Office of Research and Development,Washington, D.C., 1993.
- Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Public Health Assessment GuidanceManual. Atlanta, Ga., 1992.
This Sauget Area 1 (Dead Creek) public health assessment was prepared by the IllinoisDepartment of Public Health under a cooperative agreement with the Agency for ToxicSubstances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). It was done in accordance with methodology andprocedures approved when the public health assessment was begun.
W. Allen Robison
Technical Project Officer
Superfund Site Assessment Branch (SAAB)
Division of Health Assessment and Consultation (DAC)
ATSDR
The Division of Health Assessment and Consultation, ATSDR, has reviewed this public health assessment and concurs with its findings.
Roberta Erlwein
Chief, State Programs Section
SSAB, DHAC, ATSDR
| Chemical of Interest | Maximum Level (in ppm) | Soil Comparison Value (in ppm)2 | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Site G | Site H | Site I | Site L | Site N | Comparison Value | Source | |
| Dioxins and Furans as 2,3,7,8-TCDD 1 | 1e-05 | 0.00129 | 0.00127 | 0.001 | 0.000345 | 0.00005 | CEMEG |
| Total PCBs | 0.0465 | 1.5 | 121 | 1.17 | 0.178 | 0.4 | CREG |
| Arsenic | 8 | 64 | 12 | 37 | 7.3 | 0.5 | CREG |
| Cadmium | 0.39 | 22 | 31 | 10 | 1.5 | 10 | CEMEG |
| Lead | 16 | 230 | 1410 | 940 | 0.41 | NV | NV |
| Thallium | ND | 2.5 | ND | 2.1 | ND | NV | NV |
| Heptachlor epoxide | 0.0002 | 0.044 | 0.14 | 1.17 | ND | 0.08 | CREG |
| Benzo(a)pyrene | ND | 0.14 | 2.2 | 7 | 0.33 | 0.1 | CREG |
| Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene | ND | 0.1 | 1.6 | 4.8 | 0.25 | NV | NV |
| Phenanthrene | ND | 0.11 | 3.3 | 12 | 0.26 | NV | NV |
| Benzo(a)anthracene | ND | 0.13 | 2.2 | 7.8 | 0.27 | NV | NV |
| Benzo(b)Fluoranthene | ND | 0.14 | 2.8 | 6.6 | 0.32 | NV | NV |
| Benzo(k)Fluoranthene | ND | 0.24 | 0.96 | 6.8 | 0.36 | NV | NV |
| Chrysene | ND | 0.3 | 2.2 | 7.8 | 0.31 | NV | NV |
| Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene | ND | ND | 0.36 | 1.3 | 0.11 | NV | NV |
| Carbazole | ND | ND | 0.32 | 1.5 | ND | NV | NV |
CEMEG - Chronic Environmental Media Guide
NV - No Value
CREG - Cancer Risk Evaluation Guide
ND - Not Detected
PCB - Polychlorinated Biphenyls
1 The total toxicity equivalent as 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
2 Guideline values for children
| Chemical of Interest | Surface | Subsurface | Comparison Value (CV) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Maximum Level | Average Level | Maximum Level | Average Level | CV | Source | |
| Dioxins and Furans as 2,3,7,8-TCDD 1 | 0.0001874 | 0.00001 | 0.00014 | 0.00005 | 0.00005 | CEMEG |
| Arsenic | 34 | 7.41 | 11 | 5.38 | 0.5 | CREG |
| Thallium | 1.4 | 0.64 | 0.72 | 0.57 | NV | NV |
| Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene | 0.8 | 0.09 | 1.9 | 0.086 | NV | NV |
| Benzo(a)anthracene | 4.3 | 0.3 | 12 | 0.3 | NV | NV |
| Benzo(b)fluoranthene | 4.4 | 0.3 | 9.8 | 0.26 | NV | NV |
| Benzo(k)fluoranthene | 3.4 | 0.27 | 6.3 | 0.211 | NV | NV |
| Benzo(a)pyrene | 3.6 | 0.26 | 5.6 | 0.154 | 0.1 | CREG |
| Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene | 2 | 0.19 | 3.5 | 0.16 | NV | NV |
| Chrysene | 4.9 | 0.34 | 11 | 0.28 | NV | NV |
| Benzo(g,h,i)perylene | 2.2 | 0.196 | 1.1 | 0.105 | NV | NV |
| Phenanthrene | 9.2 | 0.461 | 0 | 0 | NV | NV |
| Heptachlor epoxide | 0.03 | 0.00174 | ND | ND | 0.02 | CREG |
| Carbazole | 1 | 0.125 | 0.82 | 0.11 | NV | NV |
1 The total toxicity equivalent as 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
CEMEG - Chronic Environmental Media Evaluation Guide
CREG - Cancer Risk Environmental Guide
NV - No Value
ND - Not Detected
| Chemical of Interest | Residential | Site I | Sites G,H,L | Env. Media Guide (6) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Maximum Level | Maximum Level | Maximum Level | Comparison Value | Source | |
| Dioxins and Furans as 2,3,7,8-TCDD (1) | 0.001 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.00001 | CEMEG |
| Total PCBs (2) | 0.06 | 15,750 | 54.5 | 0.02 | CREG |
| 1,1-Dichloroethane | ND | 960 | ND | NV | NV |
| 1,1-Dichloroethene | ND | 330 | ND | 0.06 | CREG |
| 2-Chlorophenol | ND | 84 | 630 | 40 | LTHA |
| Benzene | ND | 750 | ND | 0.6 | CREG |
| Chlorobenzene | ND | 34,000 | ND | 100 | LTHA |
| Cis/Trans-1,2-Dichloroethene | ND | 1,400 | ND | 70/100 CIS/TRANS | LTHA |
| Ethylbenzene | ND | 870 | 1,800 | 700 | LTHA |
| Tetrachloroethene | ND | 83 | ND | 5 | MCL |
| Trichloroethene | 0.642 | 180 | ND | 5 | CREG |
| Vinyl chloride | ND | 970 | ND | 0.03 | CREG |
| 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene | ND | 1,100,000 | 1,080 | 10 | LTHA |
| 1,2-Dichlorobenzene | ND | 12,000 | 720 | 600 | LTHA |
| 1,3-Dichlorobenzene | ND | 1,100 | ND | 600 | LTHA |
| 1,4-Dichlorobenzene | ND | 51,000 | 14,000 | 75 | LTHA |
| 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol | ND | 1,700 | 18.92 | 3 | CREG |
| 2,4-Dichlorophenol | ND | 2,400 | 89.82 | 20 | LTHA |
| 3&4-Methylphenol (m&p-cresol) | ND | ND | 2400 | 500 | RMEG |
| 4,6-Dinitro-2-methylphenol | ND | ND | 1.02 | NV | NV |
| 4-Chloroaniline | ND | 4,100 | 23,000 | 40 | RMEG |
| bis(2-Chloroethyl)ether | ND | 7.35 | ND | 0.02 | CREG |
| bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate | ND | 420 | 32 | 3 | CREG |
| Carbazole | ND | 240 | 4.122 | NV | NV |
| Dimethylphthalate | ND | ND | 3.652 | NV | NV |
| Hexachlorobenzene | ND | 90,000 | 1,022 | 0.02 | CREG |
| Nitrobenzene | ND | 140 | 3.242 | 2 | RMEG |
| N-Nitrosodiphenylamine | ND | 760 | 14.7 | 7 | CREG |
| Phenol | ND | ND | 14,000 | 4,000 | LTHA |
| Pyrene | ND | 540 | ND | 300 | RMEG |
| Benzo(a)anthracene | 0.45 (3) | 400 | 1.92 | NV | NV |
| Benzo(a)pyrene | 0.49 (3) | 380 | 4.92 | 0.005 | CREG |
| Benzo(b)fluoranthene | 0.44 (3) | 290 | 2.112 | NV | NV |
| Benzo(g,h,i)perylene | ND | 300 | 4.872 | NV | NV |
| Benzo(k)fluoranthene | ND | 220 | 5.992 | NV | NV |
| Chrysene | 0.58 (3) | 740 | 6.152 | NV | NV |
| Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene | ND | 210 | 5.962 | NV | NV |
| Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene | 0.66 (3) | 240 | 4.942 | NV | NV |
| Naphthalene | ND | 5,800 | 1,112 | 100 | LTHA |
| Phenanthrene | ND | 790 | 5.532 | NV | NV |
| Aluminum | ND | ND | 33,000 | 20,000 | IEMEG |
| Antimony | ND | 60 | 150 | 4 | RMEG |
| Arsenic | 40 | 140 | 4,300 | 0.02 | CREG |
| Barium | ND | 1,200 | 980 | 700 | RMEG |
| Cadmium | ND (4) | 70 | ND (4) | 2 | CEMEG |
| Chromium | ND | 200 | 570 | 100 | LTHA/MCL |
| Cobalt | ND | ND | 220 | 100 | IEMEG |
| Lead | 80 (3) | 3,850 | 50 | NV | NV |
| Manganese | 1,700 | 7,700 | 10,000 | 500 | RMEG |
| Molybdenum | ND | 40 | 450 | 40 | LTHA |
| Nickel | ND | 27,000 | 180,000 | 100 | LTHA |
| Sodium | ND | 600,000 | ND | 20,000 | IDPH |
| Thallium | ND | ND | 10 | 0.5 | LTHA |
| Vanadium | 60 | 50 | 330 | 30 | IEMEG |
| Zinc | 2,300 | 33,000 | ND | 2,000 | LTHA |
| 2,4-D | ND | ND | 380 | 70 | LTHA |
| 4,4'-DDD | ND | 180 | 0.642 | 0.1 | CREG |
| 4,4'-DDE | ND | 2.2 | 0.16 | 0.1 | CREG |
| 4,4'-DDT | ND | 1.1 | 14 | 0.1 | CREG |
| Aldrin | ND | 0.01 | 0.07 | 0.002 | CREG |
| alpha-BHC | ND | 3,300 | 1,295 | 0.006 | CREG |
| beta-BHC | ND | 46 | 1.822 | 0.02 | CREG |
| delta-BHC | ND | 41 | 0.432 | 0.02 | CREG |
| gamma-BHC (Lindane) | 0.03 | 0.4 | 0.012 | 0.02 | CREG |
| Chlordane | ND | 3.5 | YES (5) | 0.1 | CREG |
| Alpha Chlordane | ND | ND | 0.1 | 0.1 | CREG |
| Gamma Chlordane | ND | 3.5 | YES (5) | 0.1 | CREG |
| Dieldrin | ND | 0.012 | 8 | 0.002 | CREG |
| Heptachlor | ND | 2.2 | 0.022 | 0.008 | CREG |
| Heptachlor epoxide | ND | 0.22 | 4.4 | 0.004 | CREG |
| Isophorone | ND | ND | 50 | 40 | CREG |
| MCPA | ND | ND | 720 | 4 | LTHA |
| MCPP | ND | 18,000 | 4,250 | NV | NV |
| Pentachlorophenol | 1.292 | 575 | 1,152 | 0.2 | CREG |
| 2,4,5-TP (Silvex) | ND | ND | 390 | 50 | LTHA |
1 The total toxicity equivalent as 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
2 PCBs - Polychlorinated Biphenyls
3 only one sample used in calculations
4 Detection limit greater than comparison value
5 Isomers Exceed Value
6 All Comparison Values for children
IDPH - At levels greater than 20,000 ppb, residents on a sodium restricted diet should consult their physicians.
CEMEG - Chronic Environmental Media Guide
IEMEG - Intermediate Environmental Media Guide
CREG - Cancer Risk Evaluation Guide
LTHA - Lifetime Health Advisory
RMEG - Reference Dose Media Evaluation Guide
MCL - Maximum Contaminant Level
NV - No Comparison Value
ND - Not Detected
| Chemical of Interest | Maximum Level for Each Location | Comparison Values (CV) | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CS-B | CS-D | CS-E | CS-F | OPDC | REF | Site M | CV for Child | Source | |
| Dioxins and Furans as 2,3,7,8-TCDD* | <0.003 | <0.003 | <0.003 | <0.003 | <0.003 | <0.003 | <0.003 | 0.00001 | CEMEG |
| Total PCBs | ND | 0.06 | ND | ND | ND | ND | ND | 0.02 | CREG |
| Benzene | ND | ND | ND | 1.7 | ND | ND | ND | 0.6 | CREG |
| Arsenic | 10 | 10 | ND | 0 | 10 | 20 | ND | 0.02 | CREG |
| Antimony | 10 | ND | ND | ND | ND | ND | ND | 4 | RMEG |
| Lead | 0.01 | 20 | ND | 0 | 0 | 30 | 0.01 | 15 | USEPA |
| Manganese | 0.03 | 0.17 | 0.14 | 0.14 | 630 | 2900 | 0.17 | 500 | RMEG |
| Di-n-octylphthalate | ND | ND | ND | ND | 1.1 | ND | ND | NV | NV |
| 3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine | ND | ND | ND | ND | ND | 5 | ND | 0.08 | CREG |
| Aldrin | 0 | 0.01 | ND | ND | ND | 0 | 0 | 0.3 | RMEG |
| gamma-BHC (Lindane) | 0.04 | 0.05 | 0 | ND | ND | 0.01 | 0 | 0.024 | CREG |
| alpha-BHC | 0.02 | 0.01 | 0 | ND | ND | 0 | 0 | 0.006 | CREG |
| beta-BHC | 0.02 | 0.03 | 0.01 | ND | ND | 0.02 | 0 | 0.02 | CREG |
| delta-BHC | 0.02 | 0.01 | 0.03 | ND | ND | 0.01 | 0 | 0.024 | CREG |
| Heptachlor | 0 | 0.01 | 0 | ND | ND | 03 | 0 | 0.008 | CREG |
| Heptachlor epoxide | 0.01 | 0.02 | ND | ND | ND | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.004 | CREG |
| Pentachlorophenol | 1.75 | ND | ND | ND | ND | ND | ND | 0.2 | CREG |
| Benzo(a)anthracene | ND | ND | ND | ND | 0.62 | ND | ND | NV | NV |
| Benzo(a)pyrene | ND | ND | ND | ND | 2.89 | ND | ND | 0.005 | CREG |
| Benzo(b)Fluoranthene | ND | ND | ND | ND | 2.8 | ND | ND | NV | NV |
| Benzo(k)fluoranthene | ND | ND | ND | ND | 2.88 | ND | ND | NV | NV |
| Chrysene | ND | ND | ND | ND | 0.74 | ND | ND | NV | NV |
| Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene | ND | ND | ND | ND | 2.9 | ND | ND | NV | NV |
* The total toxicity equivalent as 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
OPDC - Old Prairie DuPont Creek
CEMEG - Chronic Environmental Media Guide
NV - No Comparison Value
ND - Not Detected
TEQ - Toxicity Equivalent (of 2,3,7,8-TCDD)
REF - background reference value
CREG - Cancer Risk Evaluation Guide
RMEG - Reference Dose Media Evaluation
2,3,7,8-TCDD - 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
USEPA - action level for lead in drinking water
