PETITIONED PUBLIC HEALTH ASSESSMENT
WEST PULLMAN IRON & METAL
(a/k/a WEST PULLMAN/VICTORY HEIGHTS)
CHICAGO, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS
- The Dutch Boy site represents a potential public health hazard to on-site workers andtrespassers who were exposed to elevated levels of lead in the surface soil and debris in the past.
- Potential exposures to on-site contaminants are unlikely to exist currently or in the future since;
- Off-site soil has not been fully characterized for lead contamination for past, current or potential future exposure, therefore, this site represents an indeterminate health hazard for off-site exposures.
-Significantly elevated blood lead levels appear to have been limited to those individuals exposed while on the site in the past.
-The concentration of PCBs, asbestos, arsenic, and PAHs were not present at high enough levels and for a period of exposure in the past that would likely result in adverse health effects.
- Current site security appears to be adequate to prevent casual entrance onto the site.
- Potential exposures to these contaminants are currently reduced and due to limited access and on-site vegetative growth, soil movement is limited.
- Additional remedial activity with proper air monitoring will further reduce potential future exposures.
- The International Harvester site represents a potential public health hazard to workers and trespassers who were exposed in the past to contaminants in the on-site soil. However, past exposures to these on-site contaminants are not likely to have caused adverse health effects.
- A potential exists for exposure to asbestos and PAHs via inhalation from on-site dustgenerated during remediation of the site.
- Limited data are available to further characterize current and future potential exposures to off-site surface soil contaminants and represents an indeterminate health hazard.
- Following analysis of available data, off-site exposures to site related contaminants do not appear to have been associated with any identifiable public health hazard in the past, nor is there any health hazard likely to exist now or in the future.
- Concern about fence security appears to be an ongoing issue, making the site easily accessible to trespassers.
1. Conduct perimeter air monitoring for lead, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, volatile organiccompounds, and asbestos during future cleanup of the site.
2. Provide community education regarding potential exposures to contaminants when trespassingonto the site and potential exposures to other sources of lead within the community.
3. Establish appropriate use of the property to the level of cleanup; i.e. industrial property uses if soilis remediated to EPA industrial clean-up levels.
4. Further characterize off-site residential soils for lead.
5. People who are concerned that they may have been exposed to high levels of lead and have notbeen tested, should have a blood test. Persons who have had their blood tested for lead, shouldcontact the health department for individual results.
1. Eliminate on-site physical hazards.
2. Sample off-site residential areas and the elementary school yard for lead, arsenic, PAHs, andasbestos.
3. Monitor perimeter air for asbestos, PAHs, arsenic, and lead during future cleanup.
4. Provide community education regarding potential exposures to on-site contaminants.
Ongoing Actions
1. Remediation activities continue with EPA as the lead agency.
Completed Actions
1. Perimeter fencing installed.
2. Community health education on the contaminants of concern by Technical Outreach Services for Communities (TOSC).
Ongoing Actions
1. Remediation activities continue with IEPA as the lead agency.
Completed Actions
1. Perimeter fencing installed.
2. Community health education on the contaminants of concern by Technical Outreach Services for Communities (TOSC).
3. ATSDR letter to USEPA and IEPA regarding eminent physical hazards present on the IH site.
Jenny Dorley, RN, MPH
Environmental Health Scientist
Exposure Investigation and Consultation Branch
Petitioned Response Section
Division of Health Assessment and Consultation
Frank Schnell, Ph.D.
Toxicologist
Exposure Investigation and Consultation Branch
Petitioned Response Section
Division of Health Assessment and Consultation
Adele M. Childress, PhD, MSPH
Environmental Health Scientist
Exposure Investigation and Consultation Branch
Petitioned Response Section
Division of Health Assessment and Consultation
Map 1. Dutch Boy Site Location Map
Map 2. International Harvester Site Location Map
APPENDIX B: LETTERS FROM ATSDR TO USEPA AND IEPA REGARDING PHYSICAL HAZARDS AT INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER
APPENDIX C: POLYCYCLIC AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS TABLES
| PAH2 | Concentration (ppm)3 | CV (ppm) [pica child/child/adult] | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Phenanthrene | 0.79J4 | --5 | -- |
| Anthracene | < 0.330 | 600 / 20,000 / 200,000 | chronic RMEG6 |
| Di-n-butylphthalate | < 0.330 | 200 / 5,000 / 70,000 | chronic RMEG |
| Fluoranthene | 1.24J | 80 / 2,000 / 30,000 | chronic RMEG |
| Pyrene | 1.33J | 60 / 2,000 / 20,000 | chronic RMEG |
| Benzo(a)anthracene | 0.76J | 0.87 | EPA-RBC7 |
| Chrysene | 0.84J | 87 | EPA-RBC |
| Benzo(b)fluoranthene | 1.2J | 0.87 | EPA-RBC |
| Benzo(k)fluoranthene | < 0.330 | 8.7 | EPA-RBC |
| Benzo(a)pyrene | 0.86J | 0.1, 0.087 | CREG, EPA-RBC |
| Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene | 0.63J | 0.87 | EPA-RBC |
| Benzo(g,h,i)perylene | 0.57J | 87 | EPA-RBC |
2 Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH)
3 parts per million (ppm)
4 "J" indicates an estimated value
5No value available
6 RMEG = Reference Dose Media Evaluation Guide
7 Environmental Protection Agency Region III, Risk Based Concentration (RBC), 1998
| PAH2 | Concentration Range ( ppm)3 | CV (ppm) [pica child/child/adult] | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Naphthalene | 9.3J4 - 130 | 3 / 100 | EPA-RBC5 |
| 2-Methylnaphthalene | 0.150J - 7.7 | 3 / 100 | EPA-RBC |
| Acenaphthylene | 0.04J - 37J | --6 | -- |
| Acenaphthene | 6.8J - 41 J | 4 / 700 | EPA-RBC |
| Dibenzofuran | 0.09J - 22 J | 310 | EPA-RBC |
| Fluorene | 40J - 43 J | 80 / 2,000 / 30,000 | chronic RMEG7 |
| Phenanthrene | 0.9 - 860 | -- | -- |
| Anthracene | 0.094J - 190 J | 600 / 20,000 / 200,000 | chronic RMEG |
| Carbazole | 0.086J - 150 J | 32 | EPA-RBC |
| Di-n-butylphthalate | 0.05 J | 200 / 5,000 / 70,000 | chronic RMEG |
| Fluoranthene | 0.9 - 1,700 | 80 / 2,000 / 30,000 | chronic RMEG |
| Pyrene | 0.79 - 1,300 | 60 / 2,000 / 20,000 | chronic RMEG |
| Benzo(a)anthracene | 0.36J - 630 | 0.87 | EPA-RBC |
| Chrysene | 0.65J - 710 | 87 | EPA-RBC |
| Benzo(b)fluoranthene | 0.71J - 440 | 0.87 | EPA-RBC |
| Benzo(k)fluoranthene | 3.3J - 400 | 8.7 | EPA-RBC |
| Benzo(a)pyrene | 0.28J - 410 | 0.1, 0.087 | CREG, EPA-RBC |
| Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene | 0.21J - 250 | 0.87 | EPA-RBC |
| Dibenz(a,h)anthracene | 0.054J - 140 | 0.087 | EPA-RBC |
| Benzo(g,h,i)perylene | 0.3J - 240 | 87 | EPA-RBC |
2 Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH)
3 parts per million (ppm)
4 "J" indicates an estimated value
5 Environmental Protection Agency Region III, Risk Based Concentration (RBC), 1998
6 No value available
7 RMEG = Reference Dose Media Evaluation Guide
| Compound | Concentration Range (ppm) | Comparison Value | Background Levels* | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Value (ppm)2 [pica child / child / adult] | Source | |||
| PAHs: fluoranthene | 110J3 / 880 130J / 730 49J / 370 51J / 420 41J / 340 33J / 220 36J / 290 --- / 57J 20J / 180 | 80 / 2,000 / 30,000 60 / 2,000 / 20,000 --5 -- -- -- 0.01 -- -- | chronic oral RMEG4 chronic oral RMEG -- -- -- -- CREG6, EPA B2 -- -- | 0.450U 0.450U 0.450U 0.450U 0.450U 0.450U 0.450U 0.450U 0.450U |
| Metals: barium | 507 / 410 4.2 / 6.4 987 / 998 1,100 / 832 100 / 96.3 25.5 / 25.5 759 / 1,140 | 100 / 4,000 / 50,000 1 / 40 / 500 -- 10 / 300 / 4,000 40 / 1,000 / 10,000 6 / 200 / 2,000 600 / 20,000 / 200,000 | chronic oral RMEG chronic oral EMEG7 EPA B2 chronic oral RMEG chronic oral RMEG intermediate oral RMEG chronic oral RMEG | 116.0 1.2B 68.3 126.0 13.1 29.2 103.0 |
2 parts per million (ppm)
3 "J, U, B" data qualifiers, J= estimated concentration
4 RMEG = Reference Dose Media Evaluation Guide
5No value available
6 CREG = Cancer Risk Evaluation Guide
7 EMEG = Environmental Media Evaluation Guide
| PAH2 | Concentration (ppm)3 | CV (ppm) [pica child/child/adult] | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Naphthalene | 0.047J4 | 3 / 100 | EPA-RBC5 |
| 2-Methylnaphthalene | 0.068J | 3 / 100 | EPA-RBC |
| Acenaphthene | 0.062J | 4 / 700 | EPA-RBC |
| Dibenzofuran | 0.049J | 310 | EPA-RBC |
| Diethylphthalate | 0.038J | 2000 / 40,000 / 600,000 | chronic RMEG6 |
| Fluorene | 0.084 | 80 / 2,000 / 30,000 | chronic RMEG |
| Hexachlorobenzene | 0.040J | .04 /1 / 10 | chronic RMEG |
| Phenanthrene | 0.120 - 1.0 | --7 | -- |
| Anthracene | 0.063J - 0.210J | 600 / 20,000 / 200,000 | chronic RMEG |
| Carbazole | 0.038J - 0.120J | 32 | EPA-RBC |
| Di-n-butylphthalate | 0.028J - .088J | 200 / 5,000 / 70,000 | chronic RMEG |
| Fluoranthene | 0.260J - 1.6 | 80 / 2,000 / 30,000 | chronic RMEG |
| Pyrene | 0.220J - 1.5 | 60 / 2,000 / 20,000 | chronic RMEG |
| Butlylbenzophthalate | 0.1J | 400 / 10,000 / 100,000 | chronic RMEG |
| Benzo(a)anthracene | 0.110J - 0.750 | 0.87 | EPA-RBC |
| Chrysene | 0.140J - 0.770 | 87 | EPA-RBC |
| Di-n-octylphthalate | 0.032J - 0.035J | -- | -- |
| Benzo(b)fluoranthene | 0.140J - 0.770 | 0.87 | EPA-RBC |
| Benzo(k)fluoranthene | 0.087J - 0.530 | 8.7 | EPA-RBC |
| Benzo(a)pyrene | 0.110J - 0.660 | 0.1, 0.087 | CREG8, EPA-RBC |
| Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene | 0.092J - 0.440J | 0.87 | EPA-RBC |
| Dibenz(a,h)anthracene | 0.028J - 0.160J | 0.087 | EPA-RBC |
| Benzo(g,h,i)perylene | 0.086J - 0.410J | 87 | EPA-RBC |
2 Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH)
3 parts per million (ppm)
4 "J" indicates an estimated value
5 Environmental Protection Agency Region III, Risk Based Concentration (RBC), 1998
6 RMEG = Reference Dose Media Evaluation Guide
7 No value available
8 CREG = Cancer Risk Evaluation Guide
ATSDR's Comparison Values
ATSDR comparison values are media-specific concentrations that are considered to be "safe" underdefault conditions of exposure. They are used as screening values in the preliminary identification of"contaminants of concern" at a site. The latter is, perhaps, an unfortunate term since the word"concern" may be misinterpreted as an implication of "hazard". As ATSDR uses the phrase,however, a "contaminant of concern" is merely a site-specific chemical substance that the healthassessor has selected for further evaluation of potential health effects.
Generally, a chemical is selected as a contaminant of concern because its maximum concentration inair, water, or soil at the site exceeds one of ATSDR's comparison values. However, it cannot beemphasized strongly enough that comparison values are not thresholds of toxicity. Whileconcentrations at or below the relevant comparison value may reasonably be considered safe, it doesnot automatically follow that any environmental concentration that exceeds a comparison valuewould be expected to produce adverse health effects. Indeed, the whole purpose behind highlyconservative, health-based standards and guidelines is to enable health professionals to recognize andresolve potential public health problems before they become actual health hazards. The probabilitythat adverse health outcomes will actually occur as a result of exposure to environmentalcontaminants depends on site specific conditions and individual lifestyle and genetic factors thataffect the route, magnitude, and duration of actual exposure, and not on environmentalconcentrations alone.
Screening values based on non-cancer effects are obtained by dividing NOAELs or LOAELsdetermined in animal or (less often) human studies by cumulative safety margins (variously calledsafety factors, uncertainty factors, and modifying factors) that typically range from 10 to 1,000 ormore. By contrast, cancer-based screening values are usually derived by linear extrapolation fromanimal data obtained at high doses, because human cancer incidence data for very low levels ofexposure simply do not exist, and probably never will. In neither case can the resulting screeningvalues (i.e., EMEGs or CREGs) be used to make realistic predictions of health risk associated withlow-level exposures in humans.
Listed and described below are the various comparison values that ATSDR uses to select chemicalsfor further evaluation, along with the abbreviations for the most common units of measure.
CREG = Cancer Risk Evaluation Guides MRL = Minimal Risk Level EMEG = Environmental Media Evaluation Guides RMEG = Reference Dose Media Evaluation Guide PEL = Permissible Exposure Limit (OSHA) TLV = Threshold Limit Value (ACGIH) ppm = parts per million, e.g., mg/L or mg/kg ppb = parts per billion, e.g., µg/L or µg/kg kg = kilogram (1,000 grams) mg = milligram (0.001 grams) µg = microgram (0.000001 grams) L = liter m3 = cubic meter (used in reference to a volume of air equal to 1,000 liters)
Cancer Risk Evaluation Guides (CREGs) are estimated contaminant concentrations in water, soil, or air that would be expected to cause no more than one excess cancer in a million persons exposed over a lifetime. CREGs are calculated from EPA's cancer slope factors.
Minimal Risk Levels (MRL) are estimates of daily human exposure to a chemical (i.e., dosesexpressed in mg/kg/day) that are unlikely to be associated with any appreciable risk of deleteriousnoncancer effects over a specified duration of exposure. MRLs are derived for acute (< 14 days),intermediate (15-364 days), and chronic (> 365 days) exposures, and are published in ATSDR'sToxicological Profiles for specific chemicals.
Environmental Media Evaluation Guides (EMEGs) are concentrations of a contaminant in water,soil, or air that are unlikely to be associated with any appreciable risk of deleterious noncancer effectsover a specified duration of exposure. EMEGs are derived from ATSDR minimal risk levels byfactoring in default body weights and ingestion rates. Separate EMEGS are computed for acute (<14 days), intermediate (15-364 days), and chronic (>365 days) exposures.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) values are similar to ATSDR's CREGs and EMEGs inthat they are risk-based concentrations derived for carcinogens and non-carcinogens from RfDs andCancer Slope Factors, respectively, assuming default values for body weight, exposure duration andfrequency, etc. Unlike ATSDR values, however, they are available for fish, as well as for water, soil,and air.
Reference Dose Media Evaluation Guide (RMEG) is the concentration of a contaminant in air,water or soil that corresponds to EPA's RfD of RfC for that contaminant when default values for bodyweight and intake rates are taken into account.
Threshold Limit Values (TLV) are established by the American Conference of GovernmentalIndustrial Hygienists (ACGIH). The TLV is the time-weighted average concentrations for a normal8-hour workday and a 40-hour workweek, to which nearly all workers may be repeatedly exposed,day after day, without adverse effect. Many of ACGIH's TLVs were adopted by OSHA for use asPELs, TLVs, and PELs, which were designed to protect healthy workers, are usually much higherthan the health-based values of ATSDR and EPA, which were designed to protect the health of thegeneral population, including the very young and the elderly. Although the ATSDR does not baseany of its community health decisions on TLVs or PELs, it sometimes cites such values in PublicHealth Assessments merely as a means of putting concentrations of site-specific contaminants into ameaningful perspective for the reader.
Permissible Exposure Limits (PELs) are air standards developed by the Occupational Safety andHealth Administration for the workplace. They are time-weighted average concentrations ofcontaminants considered safe for healthy workers over the course of an 8-hr workday and a 40-hrworkweek. A PEL may be exceeded for brief periods, but the sum of the exposure levels averaged over 8 hours must be equal to or below the PEL.
