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




The available environmental monitoring data are presented in this section. Contaminants in soiland air are reviewed separately for the Dutch Boy and International Harvester sites. Whetherexposure to these contaminants has public health significance is evaluated in subsequentsections of this public health assessment (PHA). ATSDR selects and discusses contaminantsbased on several factors, including concentrations on and off the site, comparison of on- and off-site concentrations with comparison values for noncarcinogenic and carcinogenic endpoints,and community health concerns.

Even though a contaminant is listed in a table in the document it does not mean that it will causeadverse health effects, if exposure occurs at the specified concentrations. Contaminantsincluded in the tables are further evaluated in this PHA. The potential for adverse health effectsfrom exposure to the contaminants listed is discussed in the Public Health Implications section.

Comparison values for ATSDR public health assessments are concentrations of contaminants inspecific environmental media (i.e., air, soil, drinking water) that are not expected to produce anadverse health effect in people who are exposed. These values are used only as screening values. When the concentration of a contaminant detected on or off the site is above the comparisonvalue, it is further evaluated to determine the potential for adverse health effects. See Appendix Efor a description of the comparison values used in this PHA. ATSDR considers both adults andchildren when developing comparison values, with the assumption that in certain situationschildren may be more sensitive and more exposed to contaminants. For example, children maycome into contact with and ingest soil particles at higher rates than do adults; also somechildren with an uncommon behavior trait known as "pica" are more likely than others to ingest soil and other nonfood items.

Dutch Boy: On-site Contamination

Surface Soil

Elevated lead levels have been found on the site in all sampling performed from 1987 to the present. Lead concentrations are generally highest in the western half of the site, in particular near theloading docks. A 1993 site investigation found on-site soil lead at levels (4) above 2,000 parts permillion (ppm).

Sampling in June 1995 indicated surface soil lead concentrations as high as 2,450 milligram perkilogram (mg/kg) at a 3-inch depth (5). EPA recommended that, a) further action be taken at thesite; b) the site be secured immediately with a fence; and c) an extent of contamination study beconducted to better characterize the extent of lead contaminated soil at the site. Sampling in July1997 also indicated elevated lead levels in the surface soil [Table 1] (6). Currently, ATSDR has nohealth comparison values for lead (7). EPA's action level for lead in residential soil is 400 parts permillion (ppm) (USEPA, June 1998).

Several polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) have been identified on the DB property. Acomplete listing of the PAHs found on the site is provided in Appendix C, Table A. ATSDR'sCancer Risk Evaluation Guidelines (CREGs) are based upon the assumption of extended chronicexposure for 70 years, a condition that does not apply to this site (see the section on ToxicologicalEvaluation).

Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) were identified insurface soil by the Ecology and Environmental study in 1995 (5). PCBs were found at 0.516 ppm3" below ground surface (bgs) in one on-site sample. PCBs did not exceed ATSDR's ChronicEnvironmental Media Evaluation Guidelines (EMEGs) for noncancer effects. VOCs were detectedat levels well below comparison values in the top soil (0.2 -1ft bgs). Table 1 gives the PCB and PAH levels found on-site in the 1995 study.

Table 1.

Dutch Boy on-site surface soil data, 0-2 inches below ground surface
Compound Concentration (ppm)* Comparison Value
Value (ppm)
[pica child/child/adult]
Lead1 9.9-18,300 400 EPA action level for residential soils4
PAHs 2,3

Appendix C, Table A






chronic EMEG

1 Data source: ENVIRON Corp. Draft Extent of Contamination Survey, Dutch Boy Site, Chicago, Illinois. July 1997.
2 Data Source: Ecology & Environment, Inc. Site Assessment for International Harvester/Dutch Boy Site, Chicago, Illinois. August 1995.
3 See Appendix C, Table A, for specific PAHs
* ppm: parts per million
4 USEPA, June 1998

Subsurface Soil
Elevated lead levels have been found in subsurface soils (greater than 3" bgs). Testing in 1994, on behalf of the city of Chicago, found subsurface soil lead concentrations at a maximum concentration of 1,000 ppm at 1 to 2.5 ft bgs (8). Lead concentrations exceeded 40,000 ppm in surface soil samples taken from 1-4 feet below grade and collected near the loading dock (Environ, 1997, Table 1, samples SS08-SS12.)

Sampling in 1987 concluded that elevated VOC levels found 1-4 ft below ground surface (bgs) weredue to surface spills rather than leaking underground storage tanks (USTs) (9). In 1994 VOCs weredetected in subsurface soils (trichloroethene at 4.3 ppm and tetrachloroethene at 48 ppm; bothsamples were taken 6-15 ft bgs. These values are well below ATSDR's comparison values for achild (100 ppm and 500 ppm). Sampling in 1995 detected VOCs in subsurface soils (1- 8 ft bgs)but the values were below health comparison values (5).

Surface Water
Testing in 1993 found that standing water in the mill building met city requirements for discharge to the sewer system (4). This water contained VOCs at a total concentration of 57 ppm.

Groundwater has not been characterized. All residents of Chicago, including residents of this area, obtain their drinking water from Lake Michigan (2).

No air monitoring or sampling occurred during the demolition activities from 1983 through 1986. Monitoring was performed for respirable dust and lead in 1996 during the demolition of the remaining on-site structures (10). Monitors were placed along the perimeter of the property. One station was located upwind of the site, three downwind. No recordings of respirable dust exceeded the voluntary action level of 2.5 mg/m3 (milligram per cubic meter) (one half of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) permissible exposure level (PEL)) at any time during the demolition. Except for one daily recording period in which a level of 26.1 microgram per cubic meter (mg/m3 )was recorded, lead levels met the voluntary action level of 25 mg/m3 (one half of the OSHA PEL). ATSDR does not consider this exceedence significant. No quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) information was available for this data.

Perimeter on-site air sampling was performed in December 1996 for asbestos, lead, arsenic, andrespirable dust (Table 2 ) (6). Two samples were collected for asbestos; the maximum levelmeasured was 0.0008 fibers/ml. ATSDR's CREG for asbestos in air is 0.000004 fibers/ml. Twolow volume air samples were taken for measurement of lead and arsenic. The maximum lead levelwas 3.1 mg/m3 (PEL = 50 mg/m3 for airborne lead). Arsenic measurements were below thedetection limits of 0.16 mg/m3 and 0.14 mg/m3. Real time air monitor (RAM) was used to measurerespirable dust (6). The airborne concentration of respirable dust was recorded at 0.035 mg/m3, lessthan the advisory action level of 0.20 mg/m3. The OSHA PEL for respirable dust is 5 mg/m3. NoQA/QC information was provided with the air data.

Table 2.

Dutch Boy air monitoring data 1
Compound Concentration Comparison Value
Value Source
Asbestos 0.0008 f/cm3 0.000004 f/ml CREG
Lead 3.1 mg/m3 1.5 mg/m3


Arsenic < 0.14 mg/m3 * 0.0002 mg/m3 CREG
Dust (respirable) 0.035 mg/m3 NA


1 Data source: ENVIRON Corp. Draft Extent of Contamination Survey, Dutch Boy Site, Chicago, Illinois. July 1997. The QA/QC for the air data was not available.
2 National Ambient Air Quality Standard
* Detection limit is 0.14 microgram per cubic meter ( mg/m3)
fibers per cubic meter (f/cm3)

Sediment and Standing Water
Sediment from the former mill building had 25,000 ppm of lead at 0-0.2 ft bgs (6). Standing water in the mill building basement was analyzed for cyanide, VOCs, semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs), metals, and asbestos (4). Asbestos was not detected. VOC and SVOC levels were below the detection limits of 10-50 ppb and 10 ppb respectively. Cyanide was measured at 4.0 ppb, well below the soil comparison value for children of 200 ppb (chronic RMEG). The manganese level was 88 ppb, above the chronic Reference Dose Media Evaluation Guide (RMEG) for children (50 ppb) but below the adult level (200 ppb). Lead was detected at 104 ppb.

Dutch Boy: Off-Site Contamination

Surface Soil
A site investigation in 1993 found soil lead levels elevated on the roadway northeast of the site (4). Sampling in 1997 revealed several areas with elevated lead levels on adjacent roadways and properties (see map, Appendix A) (6). Although this map provides points of sampling, it is difficult to discern where they were taken, i.e. on residential property, vacant lots, or on the side of a road. Providing street names and information on the type of property (residential, vacant, industrial) sampled is necessary to identify off-site areas of concern.

Table 3.

Dutch Boy off-site surface soil data, 0-2 inches below ground surface1
Compound Concentration Range (ppm) Comparison Value
Value (ppm) Source
Lead (roadways) 205-24,000 400 EPA action level for residential areas 2
Lead (urban vicinity) 46-16,200 400 EPA action level for residential areas 2
1 Data source: ENVIRON Corp. Draft Extent of Contamination Survey, Dutch Boy Site, Chicago, Illinois. July 1997.
2 USEPA, June 1998

International Harvester: On-Site Contamination

Surface Soil
PAHs were detected in on-site soils tested by IEPA in 1988 (11). Elevated levels of PAHs were also detected during repeated sampling by EPA in August 1993 (12) and by IEPA in March 1995 (13), Table 4. A complete listing of the PAHs found on-site with their comparison values is provided in Appendix C-Table B. No QA/QC information was available for the 1995 IEPA data, however, the values are similar to those in 1993 which had QA/QC information.

Sampling in 1987 detected PCBs at a maximum concentration of 18 ppm (depth unknown). Follow-up investigations conducted in June 1995 indicated that levels were below the minimumdetection limit (mdl) (14).

Several heavy metals were detected at levels above comparison values for a child (13). Table 4presents the concentration ranges and comparison values of these metals.

Asbestos was first investigated on this site by the EPA in 1987. Asbestos containing materials(ACM) found were of the non-friable type (i.e. not brittle and therefore less hazardous). IEPAconducted an investigation in 1988 and found asbestos in soil samples (unknown depth andconcentration). In 1993, one sample of ACM found on the site was determined to be 40% chrysotileasbestos (7).

Table 4.

International Harvester on-site contaminant data1
Media/Compound Concentration Range (ppm) Comparison Value
Value (ppm)
[pica child/child/adult]
SOIL: 1-6 inches bgs2

Total PAH3







0.28J - 410

6.4 - 153

109 - 1890

2.0 - 17.2

298 - 1540

261 - 550

248 - 1610


0.6 / 20 / 200

100 / 4,000 / 50,000



10 / 300 / 4,000

600 / 2,000 / 200,000


chronic EMEG

chronic RMEG

chronic EMEG

carcinogen, EPA-B2

chronic RMEG

chronic EMEG

1 Data source: IEPA. Site Inspection Prioritization, International Harvester Site, Chicago, Illinois. March 1995. No QA/QC accompanies this report.
2 bgs - below ground surface
3 See Appendix C-Table B for individual polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs).

Surface Water
Sampling in 1993 detected acetone at a maximum 0.770 ppm in standing water from on-site pools (12). Acetone is often a common lab contaminant. It is possible that this sample value is due to contamination during analysis.

Groundwater has not been characterized. Area residents' tap water was tested for contaminants by the Chicago City Water Department. According to city officials, this is not a likely exposure route for contaminant migration since all Chicago residents receive their drinking water from Lake Michigan (2).

Air monitoring was not conducted during the 1984 - 1985 demolition. There was some concern by the IEPA that illegal demolition had occurred at this time. Perimeter sampling was performed for respirable dust in 1996 during demolition of the remaining on-site structures. No elevations above the voluntary action level of 2.5 mg/m3 for respirable dust (one half of the OSHA PEL) were recorded (10). No QA/QC information was available for this data.

A black oily sludge sample was taken from the bottom of an on-site manhole in 1995 and analyzed for contaminants. See Appendix C-table C for a listing of contaminants found. Sampling by IEPA detected PAHs and inorganic metals above ATSDR child comparison values (13). VOCs were below comparison values.

International Harvester: Off-Site Contamination

Surface Soil

Surface soil sampling was performed at the nearby elementary school play yard and four privateresidences in March 1995 (13). The school and residences are located on the opposite side of therailroad tracks along the southern edge of the site. See Appendix C - Table D for a complete listingof the PAHs identified in off-site soils. Metals detected include arsenic, barium, cadmium, lead,manganese, and vanadium. Table 5 presents the list of metals found in off-site soils.

A different sampling round in June 1995 also focused on off-site surface soils (14). A total of fivesamples were taken: two at the elementary school, one residence, and along the western and northernborders of the IH site. These samples were analyzed for VOCs, SVOCs, PCBs, organochlorinepesticides, total and reactive cyanide and sulfide, priority pollutant metals, total petroleum oils, oiland grease. Pesticides and PCBs were below the minimum detection limits (not given). Metals werealso detected. Arsenic levels were measured from 10.6 - 22.1ppm. Lead levels ranged from 21.3ppm to approximately 540 ppm. All other tested contaminants were undetected (mdls of 5 - 10mg/kg).

Table 5.

International Harvester off-site contaminant data 1
Media/Compound Concentration Range (ppm) Comparison Value
Value (ppm)
[pica child/child/adult]
SOIL: 0-2 inches bgs2

Total PAH3







5.6 - 10.4

108 - 286

0.84 - 2.0

96.6 - 393

202 - 330

26 - 39.2


0.6 / 20 / 200

100 / 4,000 / 50,000

1 / 40 / 500


10 / 300 / 4,000

6 / 200 / 2,000


chronic EMEG

chronic RMEG

chronic EMEG

EPA action level4

chronic RMEG

intermediate RMEG

1 Data source: IEPA. Site Inspection Prioritization, International Harvester Site, Chicago, Illinois. March 1995. No QA/QC accompanies this report.
2 bgs - below ground surface
3 See Appendix C-Table D for complete listing of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs).
4 USEPA, June 1998

Surface Water
No off-site sampling of surface water has been conducted.

C. Quality Assurance / Quality Control

In preparing this health assessment, ATSDR relied on information provided in the referenceddocuments. Unless there is information or data to suggest otherwise, it is assumed that adequatequality assurance and quality control measures were followed regarding the chain of custody,laboratory procedures, and data reporting. The analyses, conclusions, and recommendations in thishealth assessment are based on the completeness and reliability of these referenced documents.

D. Physical and Other Hazards

Dutch Boy
This site has been fenced since summer 1996 and the fence integrity appears to be good. The majority of physical hazards on the site have been eliminated or marked. Manholes and basements have been filled in with earth or cordoned off with yellow caution tape. No deep standing water chambers or pits were noted.

International Harvester
The International Harvester site contains numerous physical hazards. These include the significant gaps to the fence along the southern boundary (along the rail line). All repairs occurred in June 1997, but maintaining fence integrity has been a problem (14). It has been stated that open manholes, chambers, and water filled pits remain and continue to be a physical hazard for persons working or visiting the site (14).


To determine whether people were exposed to contaminants originating from the DB and IH site,ATSDR evaluated the environmental and human components that lead to human exposure. Thispathways analysis consists of five elements:

1) Source of contamination
2) Environmental medium in which the contaminants may be present or may migrate
3) Points of human exposure
4) Routes of human exposure such as ingestion, inhalation, or dermal exposure
5) Receptor population

ATSDR identifies exposure pathways as completed, potential, or eliminated. An exposurepathway is complete in the past, present, or future if all five elements of an exposure pathway linkthe contaminant source to a receptor population. Potential pathways, however, are defined assituations in which at least one of the five elements is missing, but could exist. Potential pathwaysindicate that exposure to a contaminant could have occurred in the past, could be occurring now,or could occur in the future. Eliminated exposure pathways are those where site characteristicsmake past, current, and future exposures through the pathway extremely unlikely.

Dutch Boy

I. Completed Exposure Pathways

See Table 6 for completed exposure pathways.

A past completed exposure has been identified for deposition of airborne lead onto surface soil at the Dutch Boy site. Persons going onto the site during or after the demolition activities of 1983-1985 were exposed via inhalation of lead in air or by contact with lead by dermal, inhalation, or ingestion of contaminated air, dust or soil. In 1985, two adults and three children were reported with elevated blood lead levels subsequent to spending time on the site. These elevated levels were attributed to the demolition activities at the Dutch Boy site (2). An additional 4 persons were identified with elevated blood lead levels during subsequent sampling. ATSDR does not have original documentation of these elevated blood lead levels and relies on statements in previous reports for this information. It is likely that workers in the plant when it was operational were also exposed via inhalation or ingestion of contaminated air, dust, and soil. No data were found to support this assumption.

Surface Soil
Surface soil contaminated predominately with lead, but also with PAHs and PCBs, constitutes a past completed on-site exposure pathway. Persons entering the site had an opportunity to be exposed via inhalation or incidental ingestion of contaminated soil. Workers were also likely to be exposed via inhalation or ingestion of contaminated soil during the operation of this site, although there are no supporting data.

Table 6.

Pathway Name Source Contaminant and Level (Max) Environ-mental Medium Point of Exposure Route of Exposure Exposed Population
if known
Air Dutch Boy, demolition activities Lead (unknown) Air/Dust/Soil Demolition site Inhalation/
Workers, trespassers
(blood lead data)
Surface soil Dutch Boy Lead (18,300 ppm)

Total PAHa

PCBsb (0.516 ppm)

Soil Soil surface (exposed), clothing, hands Inhalation/
Workers, trespassers Past *
*Fence installed July/August 1996
a See Appendix C-Table A for individual polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)
b Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB)

II. Potential Exposure Pathways, On-and Off-Site-Dutch Boy

See Table 7 for potential exposure pathways.

Surface Soil
Trespassers, particularly children playing on the abandoned site prior to it being fenced in 1996, were potentially exposed to lead in the past by incidental ingestion. Vegetation currently growing on the site minimizes the amount of exposure to contaminated soil and blowing dust. However, there is seasonal variation in the amount of vegetative cover present on this site. Persons entering the site when there is minimal vegetation are potentially at risk of exposure.

Current and future exposure of the general public to on-site surface soil contaminants is believed tobe low. The fencing installed appears to have inhibited transient passersby from entering the site.

Remedial workers and trespassers coming into contact with on-site soil risk exposure via ingestionand possibly inhalation of lead laden soil and/or dust. This risk is minimized by the seasonalvegetation growing on the site.

A current and future potential pathway of exposure exists for lead in surface soil off the site. Pedestrians on the north and northeast parkways bordering the site are potentially exposed to elevatedlead levels via inhalation or ingestion of soil and/or dust. Vegetation growing along the roadsideminimizes this risk.

A potential past, current, and future exposure pathway exists for workers, trespassers, and area residents via inhalation of particulate in the ambient air. Workers were likely exposed in the past to elevated lead levels in the air from work processes and possibly inhalation of lead laden dust particles.

Current and future exposures are possible for remedial workers and area residents. The potential forcontaminated soil to become airborne during remediation presents a hazard to unprotected workers and area residents via inhalation.

Table 7.

Pathway Source Contaminant Point of Exposure Route of Exposed Time
Surface soil On-Site Lead Surface Soil Ingestion, In-halation, Dermal Trespassers, Remedial workers Past, Current, Future
Air On-site Lead Air, particulate Inhalation Workers, trespassers Past, Current, Future
Surface soil Off-Site, DB
Lead (24,000) Surface Soil- Residential streets Ingestion, Inhalation, Dermal Area residents Past, Current, Future
Air On-site Lead Air, particulate moving off-site during past operation and future remediation Inhalation residents Past, Future
*ppm: parts per million

International Harvester

I. Completed Pathways

See Table 8 for completed on-site exposure pathways.

Surface Soil
A past completed exposure pathway has been identified for the surface soil on the site. The primary contaminants are PAHs (see Appendix C). Workers and trespassers coming into contact with the contaminated soil may have been exposed via ingestion.

Other contaminants identified in on-site surface soil include various metals and asbestos. Arsenic andcadmium were present at levels exceeding their respective CREGs (cancer comparison values). Workers and trespassers coming into contact with contaminated soils may have been exposed via ingestion and possibly inhalation of soil and/or dust.

Table 8.

Pathway Name Source Contaminant and Level (Max, ppm) a Environ-mental Medium Point of Exposure Route of Exposure Exposed Population Time/Date, if known
Surface Soil IH Total PAHsb
Arsenic (153)
Barium (1890)
Cadmium (17.2)
Lead (1540)
Manganese (550)
Vanadium (29.8)
Zinc (1610)
Soil IH site Ingestion, inhalation Workers, trespassers Past, Current
a Comparison values provided in Table 4, parts per million (ppm)
b See Appendix C-Table B for individual polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)

See Table 9 for completed off-site exposure pathways.

A completed past exposure pathway was also identified for off-site soils. Sampling was conducted inMarch 1995 in the elementary school yard and private residences to the south of the site (a total of sixsamples taken). Results from this study indicated the presence of PAHs and several metals in thesurface soil. Table 5 lists these contaminants and their comparison values. See Appendix C, Table 4for the complete listing of off-site PAHs.

The primary metals of concern are arsenic and lead. Arsenic levels range from 5.6 - 10.4 ppm, belowthe child chronic EMEG, but above the CREG of 0.5 ppm. The maximum concentration for leadwas 393 ppm, below the 400 ppm EPA action level for residential areas (USEPA, June 1998). Theroute of exposure to area residents may be through ingestion of contaminated soil. The presence ofvegetation decreases the likelihood of exposure to contaminated soils and dust. Most yards observedin this neighborhood have grass established around the house.

Sampling in June 1995 again indicated increased levels of metals, in particular arsenic and lead. Thesamples were taken from the elementary school yard, one residence, and at the western and northernborders of the site (a total of five samples). Children may have been exposed on the school play yardvia incidental ingestion, and possibly inhalation of soil and/or dust. Area residents may have beenexposed via ingestion and possibly inhalation of contaminated soil and/or dust. However, not enoughinformation is available to conclude whether PAHs are migrating off of the site.

Table 9.

Pathway Name Source Contaminant and Level (Max, ppm) a Environ-mental Medium Point of Exposure Route of Exposure Exposed Population Time/Date, if known
Surface Soil IH Total PAHs b

Arsenic (10.4)

Barium (286)

Cadmium (2.0)

Lead (393)

Manganese (330)

Vanadium (39.2)

Zinc (159)

Soil Residential yards Ingestion, Inhalation Area residents Past
a Comparison values provided in Table 5, in parts per million (ppm)
b See Appendix C-Table D for individual polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)

II. Potential Exposure Pathways

See Table 10 for potential on-site exposure pathways.

Exposure to asbestos is included as a potential pathway. Asbestos was identified on the International Harvester site as a component of other materials, i.e. roofing tile and siding. The content of these asbestos containing materials (ACM) was estimated at 40% chrysotile. Ordinarily, asbestos contained in materials such as roofing tiles and siding is bound-up and is not a hazard. However, crushing or erosion of the ACM may have created respirable particles. Workers and other persons may have been exposed to asbestos via inhalation.

Table 10.

Pathway Name Source Contaminant and Level (Max, ppm) a Environ-mental Medium Point of Exposure Route of Exposure Exposed Population Time/Date, if known
Air IH Asbestos (chrysotile) Air IH site Inhalation of particulate Workers, trespassers Past, during demolition

See Table 11 for potential off-site exposure pathways.

Surface Soil
Potential current and future exposure pathways exist for PAHs and various metals. It is possible that area residents could be exposed via ingestion of contaminated soils in residential yards.

A potential past exposure pathway exists for workers, trespassers, and area residents. Exposure to asbestos would be via inhalation of particulate in the ambient air. A future potential pathway of exposure may exist during periods of demolition on the site.

Table 11.

Pathway Name Source Contaminant and Level (Max-ppm) Point of Exposure Route of Exposure Exposed Population (No.{option} Time/Date, if known
Surface soil IH PAHs a Residential yards Ingestion,
Area residents Current,
Surface soil IH Arsenic (10.4)

Barium (286)

Cadmium (2.0)

Lead (393)

Manganese (330)

Vanadium (39.2)

Zinc (159)

Residential yards Ingestion Area residents Current,
Air IH Asbestos (chrysotile) Residential areas close to the site Inhalation of particulate Workers,
Area Residents
a See Appendix C-Table D for individual polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs).


A. Toxicologic Evaluation

In this section, health effects are discussed that could plausibly result from exposures to sitecontaminants. While the relative toxicity of a chemical is important, the response of the human bodyto a chemical exposure is actually determined by several additional factors, including the magnitude(how much), the duration (how long), and the route of exposure (breathing, eating, drinking or skincontact). Lifestyle factors (e.g., occupation and personal habits) have a major impact on these threeelements of exposure. After exposure has occurred, individual characteristics such as age, sex,nutritional status, overall health, and genetic constitution will affect how a contaminant is absorbed,distributed, metabolized, and eliminated from the body. Together, all these factors help determine theindividual's physiological response to chemical contaminants and what, if any, adverse health effectshe or she may suffer as a result of the chemical exposure.

ATSDR's Comparison Values (non-cancer):

ATSDR has determined levels of chemicals that can reasonably be regarded as harmless, based onthe scientific data the agency has collected in its Toxicological Profiles. The resulting comparisonvalues and health guidelines (which include ample safety factors to ensure protection of sensitivepopulations) are used to screen contaminant concentrations at a site, and to select substances thatwarrant closer scrutiny by agency health assessors and toxicologists. (See Appendix D for a morecomplete description of ATSDR's comparison values, health guidelines and other values ATSDRuses to screen site contaminants.)

It must be emphasized, however, that ATSDR's comparison values and health guidelines do notrepresent thresholds of toxicity. They are merely screening values used to facilitate the initialselection of site-specific chemical substances (the so-called "contaminants of concern") for furtherevaluation of potential health effects. After the contaminants of concern at a site have been identified,they must then be individually scrutinized in more detail (considering all the different factorsmentioned in the first paragraph of this section) to determine whether or not, under site-specificconditions, they represent a realistic threat to human health. Although concentrations at or below theATSDR's comparison values may reasonably be considered "safe", it does not automatically followthat any concentration above a comparison value will necessarily produce toxic effects. In fact,ATSDR's comparison values are intentionally designed so as to be orders of magnitude lower thanthe corresponding no-effect levels determined in laboratory experiments, thereby, enabling healthprofessionals to recognize potential public health problems before that potential becomes a reality.

For screening purposes only, ATSDR typically uses the lowest comparison value available (i.e.,CREGs or other chronic exposure values) for the most sensitive, potentially exposed individuals (e.g.,children or pica children). This degree of conservatism results in the selection of many contaminantsas "chemicals of concern" that will not, upon closer scrutiny, be judged to pose any hazard to humanhealth. However, ATSDR judges it prudent to use a screen that "lets through" many harmlesscontaminants rather than one that overlooks even a single potential hazard to public health. Eventhose contaminants of concern that are ultimately labeled in the toxicological evaluation as potentialpublic health hazards are so identified solely on the basis of the maximum concentration detected. Itis important that the reader keep this redundant conservatism in mind when considering theimplications of ATSDR's toxicological evaluations.

ATSDR's Comparison Values (Cancer):

The Cancer Risk Evaluation Guide (CREG) is ATSDR's most conservative comparison value. TheCREG is a media-specific contaminant concentration derived from the chronic (essentially, lifetime)dose of that substance which (according to an EPA estimate) corresponds to a maximum risk level ofone excess cancer in a million people exposed over a 70-yr lifetime.

Note that this does not mean that exposures equivalent to the CREG are actually expected to causeone excess cancer in a million persons exposed over a lifetime. Nor does it mean that every person inan exposed population of one million has a one-in-a-million chance of developing cancer from thespecified exposure. Such estimates of cancer "risk" refer to population risk only, i.e., they do notapply to any single individual. Originally developed as risk management tools for use in establishingrelative cleanup priorities, quantitative risk assessments were never intended to serve as realisticpredictions of adverse health effects. As stated in EPA's 1986 Cancer Risk Assessment Guidelines,"the true risks are unknown and may be as low as zero". Most cancer risk assessments are based onhigh-dose animal data, and theoretical extrapolation from such data to human risk are nota precisescience. In many cases, due to species-specific or dose-dependent mechanisms, these animal data areknown to be of questionable relevance to human risk.

In practice, the exposure assumptions on which EPA's cancer risk estimates and ATSDR's CREGsare based, often do not apply at contaminated sites. The size of the potentially exposed populations isusually too small for quantitative estimates of population risk to be meaningful from a public healthperspective. For example, chronic, lifetime exposure to a substance at 100 times its CREG wouldcorrespond to a risk of 100 in a million or only 0.1 in a thousand. Since there is no such thing as onetenth of an excess case of cancer, such an estimate would have no meaning to a population of lessthan 10,000 people chronically exposed at that level for life. ATSDR's CREGs continue to be usefulfor screening carcinogenic substances at contaminated sites, just as EPA's quantitative cancer riskestimates continue to be useful for establishing relative cleanup priorities. However, since neithercan be used to predict actual cancer incidence rates at any site, ATSDR relies instead on less-easily,misunderstood qualitative assessments of the likelihood that a carcinogenic hazard does or does notexist under site-specific conditions.


Only those contaminants that have been detected in concentrations exceeding comparison values orwere identified as concerns by the community are discussed in this section. In addition, since acontaminant must first enter the body before it can possibly produce any effect, adverse or otherwise,on the body, the discussion below will focus on contaminants to which actual exposures are known orlikely to have occurred.

Substances of concern in soil at the Dutch Boy (DB) site were lead, PAHs, and PCBs. PCBs are notdiscussed further because concentrations did not exceed non-cancer values for adults or non-picachildren and only slightly exceeded ATSDR's CREG. PAHs in soil generally exceeded availableCREGs, but not available child and adult EMEGs. Average soil concentrations of lead on-site andon adjacent roadsides exceeded EPA's action level. Limited air data indicate that the level ofasbestos in on-site air at the time of sampling exceeded ATSDR's CREG, but was below the EPA-estimated threshold for non-cancer lung damage by two-three orders of magnitude. Arsenic in on-siteair may or may not have exceeded comparison values, since the detection limit of the method usedwas, itself, higher than ATSDR's CREG. (No non-cancer comparison values are available forarsenic and asbestos in air.) During the December 1996 sampling event, where air monitors wereplaced at four perimeter locations on the site, lead in air exceeded the National Ambient Air QualityStandard of 1.5 mg/m3.

PAHs in soil at the International Harvester (IH) site were identified for further evaluation. Themaximum concentrations exceeded available CREGs, but not available non-cancer comparisonvalues. Arsenic was also detected in concentrations that exceeded the corresponding CREG, but notthe chronic EMEG for adults.

With the exception of lead, on-site contaminants generally occurred at concentrations below the morerelevant, non-cancer, comparison values. CREGs are based on daily, lifetime exposures (i.e. 70years). ATSDR considers that those on-site contaminants that exceeded CREGs only (i.e., PAHsand PCBs in soil, and asbestos and arsenic in air) represent little or no hazard to public health off-site,due to the limited duration of potential on-site exposures and the attenuated concentrations off-site. Lead in soil, a significant public health hazard in the past, is less of a potential hazard today due tovegetative soil cover, more restricted access, and remediation activities that will continue in thefuture. The basis for these conclusions are discussed further below.

Dutch Boy:

Lead in Soil (On-Site): On-site exposure to lead-contaminated soil and debris at the Dutch Boy siteposed a potential hazard to public health in the past, i.e., prior to the demolition of contaminatedbuildings and the removal of debris. Data for evaluating off-site exposures to site-relatedcontaminants are limited and is considered indeterminate. However, based on the data that wasavailable for review, off-site exposures do not appear to have been associated with any readilyidentifiable public health hazard in the past; nor is any such public health hazard likely to exist nowor in the future.

By 1986 standards, significantly elevated blood lead levels appear to have been limited almostexclusively to those individuals who were exposed on the site, i.e., before highly-contaminateddemolition debris was removed (e.g., during salvage operations). The nine highest blood lead levelsrecorded in the 1986 mass screening data that were submitted to ATSDR ranged from 31 to 70g/dL. (Thirty to 50 g/dL is the generally accepted range for low-level lead toxicity). Since allpersonal identifiers were removed from that data, ATSDR can only assume that these samplescorrespond to those individuals (i.e., three adult male salvage workers, three children of one of thoseworkers, two former Dutch Boy employees, and a teenage girl who lives near the site) who werediagnosed with "lead poisoning" between 1985-1986.

The mass screening data also indicated that five other individuals out of the 599 for whom ATSDRreceived test results had blood lead levels (25-29 g/dL) that were greater than or equal to CDC'slevel of concern which, at that time, was 25 g/dL. However, having no access to the personalidentifiers associated with these five samples, ATSDR cannot speculate on the probable source of thecausative exposures in these five cases but they are probably not related to acute exposures at the site. It can only be stated that the percentile ranking of these elevated levels (and, indeed, all exposures inthe vicinity of the DB/IH sites) appears to have been intermediate between that of general populationlevels described by the second and third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey(NHANES II, 1976-80 and NHANES III, 1988-91). The percentage of the tested WestPullman/Victory Heights population with virtually any given blood lead level was lower than thepercentage of a national sample population with the same blood levels in 1976-80, and higher than anational sample population in 1988-91, as one would expect if the distribution of blood lead levels inWest Pullman/Victory Heights were similar to that of the nation as a whole. Nevertheless, bloodlead levels at West Pullman/Victory Heights in 1986 probably were generally higher than thenational average in 1986 (whatever that may have been), if only because (as the NHANES datademonstrate) blood lead levels tend to be higher in urban populations.

For the present, the potential for off-site, as well as on-site, exposures to site-related contaminants iscurrently much reduced relative to conditions in 1986. The site is currently a fenced, empty lotovergrown with vegetation. Access is restricted. Potential for future exposures will be even furtherreduced by additional remediation activities that are planned by the U.S. EPA.

Percentile Ranking NHANES II








































PAHs in Soil (On-Site): PAHs (15) in soil at the Dutch Boy site do not constitute a current or future hazard to public health. Currently, the site is an empty lot, overgrown with vegetation. Access to the site is effectively restricted and additional remediation activities are planned by U.S. EPA which will further reduce the potential for future exposures.

PAHs in soil at the Dutch Boy site did not constitute a probable past hazard to public health becauseneither the levels nor the exposure conditions were sufficient to produce any known adverse healtheffects in humans. The maximum values for PAHs detected in on-site soil at Dutch Boy are listed inAppendix C, Table A. Generally speaking, the non-carcinogenic PAHs were present in amounts thatdid not exceed comparison values for chronic exposure (RMEGs and non-cancer RBCs). Themaximum (but not the minimum) recorded concentrations of the carcinogenic PAHs did exceedcancer-based comparison values (CREGs and cancer-based RBCs), but these comparison values arebased on the assumption of long-term chronic exposure, a scenario which, if it applied to anyone,would have applied only to some fraction of the on-site workers. However, even for thoseindividuals for whom such an exposure scenario may have been plausible, the maximum intake oftotal benzo(a)pyrene equivalents from on-site soil would not represent a health threat. A comparableexample is the amount of exposure that these individuals would likely receive is no more than thebenzo(a)pyrene intake associated (on average) with the daily consumption of one ounce of charcoal-grilled steak.

There is no evidence that any of these PAHs individually are carcinogenic to humans, especially notby the ingestion route. The most consistent result in rats and mice treated orally with relatively highdoses of individual carcinogenic PAHs is tumors of the forestomach, an organ which humans do notpossess (15). In monkeys, exposure to individual carcinogenic PAHs has not been very successful ininducing cancer (16). Dermal application of crude petroleum oil has caused cancer in subhumanprimates, and prolonged inhalation exposure to high levels of complex PAH mixtures (e.g., cigarettesmoke, coal tar pitch volatiles, and coke oven emissions) are associated with an elevated incidence oflung cancer in humans. However, no single PAH in these mixtures has been implicated as thecausative agent, and it is likely that other agents, including promoters which typically exhibit athreshold, play a role on the overall carcinogenicity of these mixtures. That would explain whyprolonged exposure to high doses of complex PAH-containing mixtures appear to be required toproduce cancer in primates, including humans.

Asbestos in air (On-Site): Although the maximum level of asbestos measured in air in 1996 (0.0008fibers/ml) exceeded ATSDR's CREG (17) for asbestos in air, this concentration is not likely to beassociated with any adverse health. Chronic exposure at this level over an entire (70-yr) lifetimewould correspond to 0.168 f-yr/ml. By comparison, several epidemiological studies have detectedlittle or no increase in lung cancer risk until the cumulative dose of asbestos exceeds 25-100 f-yr/ml(17). (Note: the estimate of chronic, lifetime exposure includes a factor of 3 to convert from an 8-hrwork day to a 24-hr day.) More relevant is the fact that no one has or ever will be exposed toasbestos in air at the DB site 24 hours a day for a lifetime. ATSDR therefore considers that asbestosin air does not represent a public health hazard at this site.

Arsenic in air (On-Site): Arsenic was not detected in air at the DB site during a 1996 sampling event. However, the detection limit (0.14 mg/m3) of the monitoring method used was 700 times higher thanATSDR's CREG (18), the agency's only comparison value for arsenic in air. Thus, it is impossibleto know whether arsenic in air on this occasion did or did not exceed the CREG. In either case,however, exposure conditions on-site will not correspond to those on which the CREG is based. Inaddition, it has been shown that the dose-response relationship between airborne arsenic and lungcancer in smelter workers is concave downward (18). This means that the incidence of lung cancer inthese exposed workers was disproportionately lower at lower (inhalation) exposure doses. Arsenic inair is therefore unlikely to represent any apparent health hazard at the DB site.

International Harvester (On-Site):

PAHs in Soil: PAHs in soil at the IH site do not constitute a current or future hazard to public health. Currently, the site is an empty lot, overgrown with weeds and trees and access is restricted, althoughthere are breaches in the fence that suggest occasional trespassing does occur. Also, additionalremediation activities are planned by EPA which will further reduce the potential for futureexposures.

PAHs in soil at the International Harvester site were significantly higher than those at Dutch Boy, butthe health implications are largely the same. (See section above on PAHs in Soil at the Dutch Boysite.) The maximum concentrations of PAHs in on-site soil at IH were actually higher than themaximum concentrations detected in "black, oily sludge" from the bottom of on-site manholes,suggesting that these heavily contaminated "soil" samples would probably not qualify as the type ofsoil that might be incidentally (and, especially not intentionally) ingested by workers or trespassers. Therefore, these samples probably do not provide a realistic basis for an assessment of probablehealth implications.

Generally speaking, the non-carcinogenic PAHs did not exceed comparison values for chronicexposure (RMEGs and non-cancer RBCs). While the maximum recorded concentrations of thecarcinogenic PAHs did exceed cancer-based comparison values (CREGs and cancer-based RBCs),the minimum concentrations generally did not. Based on the data presented in Appendix C, Table B,even average soil concentrations of PAHs at IH would have probably exceeded the relevant CREGs. However, cancer comparison values are based on an exposure scenario (i.e., long-term chronicexposure) that is not strictly applicable to this site. Also, as mentioned earlier, the evidence thatPAHs may cause cancer in humans by the ingestion route is weak, at best. Therefore, ATSDRconcludes that past exposure to PAHs in soil at the IH site are not likely to have caused adversehealth effects in workers, and that current exposures to trespassers are even less likely to do so.

Asbestos in soil: There is strong evidence that inhalation exposure to asbestos (amphiboles more sothan chrysotile) can cause lung cancer and mesothelioma in occupationally-exposed workers if thecumulative dose is high enough. However, the case for the carcinogenicity of asbestos via theingestion route is much weaker, in animals as well as humans. In addition, the asbestos at this sitemay have consisted primarily of non-friable (non-crumbled or not brittle) chrysotile, i.e., a lesscarcinogenic form of asbestos in a less bio-available physical state. Combined with the limitedpotential for exposure (i.e., ingestion of on-site soil), these considerations suggest that asbestos in soilat this site is not likely to pose a public health hazard.

B. Health Outcome Data Evaluation

Blood lead screening was performed in 1996 on approximately ten children by the city of Chicago Department of Health. According to the city, all the values were less than 10 g/dL.

C. Community Health Concerns Evaluation

  • Are the following specific health concerns related to the elevated levels of the chemicalsfound at the Dutch Boy and International Harvester sites: asthma, allergies, aggressivebehavior in children (especially high school age), cancer (breast and prostate), low birth rate,heart problems (neighbor has a pacemaker), rashes, kidney problems, and sarcoidosis?

None of the chemicals of concern identified at the Dutch Boy and International Harvester sites areknown to cause any of the above-indicated human health effects. The sludge in basements reportedby some residents may appear intermittently during periods of rain when the drains may back-up. The sludge in manholes on the site was reported to be similar to sludge found in some basements. This on-site sludge was analyzed and did contain some PAHs, metals, and VOC contaminants but notat levels likely to result in adverse health effects.

"Rashes" may be caused by a multitude of things. Sustained dermal contact with complex mixturesof PAHs (e.g., coal tar) can cause skin irritation, especially if the individual is allergic to them. However, this is not a relevant exposure scenario at the Dutch Boy and International Harvester sites.

It has been suggested by some investigators (19) that elevated lead levels may be associated withantisocial, delinquent, or criminal behavior. However, the relevant studies provide little support forthis contention, since they do not control for any of the numerous genetic, psychological, andenvironmental factors known to be more strongly related to aggressive behavior. Environmentalpollution is not an established contributing factor.

The relevance (or rather the lack thereof) of plausible exposures to on-site contaminants and the riskof cancer was discussed in the Toxicological Evaluation section of this document.

Sarcoidosis is a granulomatous disease of unknown cause.


ATSDR recognizes that children are different from adults when exposed to contamination in theirwater, soil, air, or food. Children are at greater risk than adults from certain kinds of exposure tohazardous substances emitted from waste sites and emergency events. They are more likely to beexposed for several reasons. First, children play outside more often than adults, increasing thelikelihood that they will come into contact with chemicals in the environment. Because they areshorter than adults they breathe more dust, soil, and heavy vapors close to the ground. Children arealso smaller, resulting in higher doses of chemical exposure per body weight. The developing bodysystems of children can sustain damage if toxic exposures occur during certain growth stages.

Past Exposure
Dutch Boy
Different reports reviewed indicate that three children were diagnosed with high blood lead levels between 1985-1986. [ATSDR was not able to obtain original documentation of these elevated levels and relies on statements in previous reports.] These children reportedly were playing on the Dutch Boy site during the demolition of the buildings. The site was accessible to trespassers for several years prior to being fenced. Community residents state that the area was a common cut through for children on their way to the school bus stop. ATSDR recognizes that it is likely for children playing on the site to have been exposed in the past to elevated soil lead levels found on the Dutch Boy site. Children could have been exposed via incidental ingestion or inhalation of contaminated soil or dust.

International Harvester
ATSDR identified a pathway in the past as a likely route of exposure for children on the International Harvester site. The abandoned site was unfenced for several years allowing access to the property. An elementary school is located approximately 625 feet from the site. As with the Dutch Boy site, this area was a common cut-through for area residents. Children playing on the site could have been exposed to PAHs and asbestos via incidental ingestion or inhalation of contaminated soil or dust on the site.

A past exposure situation was also identified for soil in residential yards. Children may have beenexposed to PAHs and metals presumably via incidental ingestion of soil in yards near the formerInternational Harvester site.

Current Exposure
Dutch Boy
ATSDR did not identify any current exposure situations for children at the Dutch Boy site. A fence surrounds the perimeter of the property, limiting access to contaminated areas on the site. A potential pathway does exist on the roadway adjacent to the northeast corner of the property. Children playing on the side of the road in this area could be exposed to elevated soil lead levels via incidental ingestion or inhalation of soil or dust.

International Harvester
There is a current potential exposure situation for children on the former International Harvester site. Significant breaches were apparent in the fence surrounding the perimeter of this property at the time of the site visit, particularly along the southern fence line facing the elementary school and residences. Poor fence integrity allows children access to the property. Children playing on the site could be exposed to PAHs, metals, and asbestos via incidental ingestion or inhalation of contaminated soil or dust on the site.

Future Exposure
Dutch Boy
A potential exposure situation exists for children in the future on the former Dutch Boy site. Children may be exposed during site remediation if contaminated dust blows off the site towards populated areas. Children could be exposed to contaminated dust via inhalation or incidental ingestion of settled dust. This exposure pathway will be eliminated if measures are taken during clean up activities to limit dust. ATSDR has recommended perimeter monitoring for lead and asbestos during further clean-up activities.

International Harvester
ATSDR identified a potential exposure situation in the future. It is possible that children may be exposed to PAHs and metals in the soil of residential yards via incidental ingestion. ATSDR has recommended better characterization of soils in residential yards. This sampling would give more information on the level of contaminants found in off-site areas. ATSDR recommends that persons who are concerned with the appearance of black oily sludge in their basement when it rains, should have it tested for contaminants.

Next Section      Table of Contents 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. #