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 Public Health (IDPH) has prepared this public health assessment to evaluate the various sites of Sauget Area 1, including Dead Creek. In May 1995, The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) issued a health consultation prepared by IDPH for Sauget Area 1. This current 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 are borrow pits that were filled with a variety of wastes including chemicals. Site L is a holding pond used for wash water from cleaning trucks used to haul hazardous wastes. Site M is a borrow pit that filled with water. Site N is an excavated area partly filled with construction debris. Dead Creek runs from Site I at Creek Segment A (CS-A), flows south through Sauget and Cahokia, 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 hazard because long-term exposure to ambient air and eating fish from Borrow Pit Lake could result in adverse health effects. The source of dioxins, 1,1-dichloroethene, and methylene chloride in ambient air is presently not known. Results from sampling and analysis of fish before the remediation of Borrow Pit Lake sediments suggest the possibility of developmental health effects in children who routinely eat contaminated fish from this site. At the time of completing this health assessment (December 2003), no post-remediation fish data were available. IDPH has recommended that additional fish sampling and analysis be conducted by USEPA. IDPH will review that data when it becomes available.
Prior to remediation of creek sediments and the fencing of some sites, exposure to elevated levels 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 September 13, 2001. In May 1995, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) issued a health consultation prepared by the Illinois Department of Public Health (IDPH) for Sauget Area 1. The conclusions and recommendations of that health consultation can be found in Attachment 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 River from St. Louis, Missouri. Sauget is surrounded by several large industries and has many areas of environmental contamination. These contaminated areas are collectively known as the Sauget Sites. The Sauget Sites are divided into two areas, Area 1 and Area 2. The general dividing line between Areas 1 and 2 is Illinois Route 3, with all sites east of Route 3 belonging to Area 1 and those 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, a cultivated field to the south, and Wiese Engineering to the west. Site G was a subsurface disposal area that covered approximately 5 acres (Figure 2).
The chain-link fence around Site G was originally constructed in May 1987 in response to high levels of volatile organic chemicals (VOCs) in surface soils. In 1995, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) removed surface wastes and soils, solidified open oil pits, and covered 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 of Queeny Avenue and Falling Springs Road. The site covers approximately 5 acres (Figure 2). At one time, the site was connected to Site I. Presently, Site H is level and vegetated. Drainage is toward 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 Falling Springs Road in Sauget. Site I runs along the eastern border of Creek Segment A and was the site of a sand and gravel borrow pit. The pit was filled and then covered and graded. A chain-link fence 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 cleaning operations of a hazardous waste hauler (Figure 2). The impoundment was about 70 feet by 150 feet in size and was 500 feet south of Queeny Avenue and approximately 125 feet east of Dead Creek in Cahokia. The site is level, covered with black cinders, and is being used to store heavy equipment. 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 and is connected to Dead Creek Segment B by a drainage way that is approximately 8 feet wide. Site M has no visible signs of chemical dumping. It is surrounded by a chain-link fence that also encompasses Dead Creek Segment B.
Site N
Site N was a borrow pit in the 1940s and was filled with concrete rubble, scrap wood, and other demolition debris (1). The site covers about 5 acres and is west of Dead Creek Segment C, east of Falling Springs Road, north of Judith Lane, and south of Edwards Street (Figure 2) (3). Site N is 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 in Sauget (Figure 2). No wastes are currently being discharged into CS-A. CS-A no longer discharges to the lower segments of the creek due to the blocking of a culvert under Queeny Avenue 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. The culverts at both Queeny Avenue and Judith Lane have been blocked to prevent the contamination in the creek from flowing into the southern portion of the creek. A chain-link fence that USEPA originally 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. These segments run through Cahokia, a wetland called Borrow Pit Lake, and then empty into the Prairie DuPont Floodway. The floodway then discharges to the Mississippi River. The creek is wider in these sections than it is in CS-B. In the southern section of CS-E, the Parks College area, the creek runs underground. It resurfaces briefly at the intersection of Route 157 and Falling Springs Road, turns west through a series of culverts, and drains into a wetland area west of Route 3. Access to these sections of the creek are unrestricted and it runs through residential areas. 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. The conclusions 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 to contaminated sediments in Dead Creek. Persons could also be exposed to contaminants near Site G and to groundwater contamination near Dead Creek Segment B. IDPH recommended the remediation of contaminated Dead Creek sediments, remediation of Site G, restricted groundwater use, restricted access to contaminated areas, flood control, and more sampling to better characterize the extent of the contamination. The conclusions and recommendations from the 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, contaminated Dead Creek sediments had been remediated. Trees along Dead Creek were removed during the sediment 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:
Remedial projects have occurred at Site G, Site M, and Creek Segments B through F. A total of 748 samples were collected, not including magnetometer and soil gas samples. In addition, an ecological 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 consisted of four samples at each site collected between 0 and 6 inches in depth. In addition, a composite sample was collected from 0 to 2 feet below the bottom of the fill material. These borings were analyzed for VOCs, semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs), pesticides, total polychlorinated biphenyls (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 of contamination.
Residential and Undeveloped Area Surface Soil Samples
Surface and subsurface soil samples were collected from 45 residential and undeveloped areas in Sauget and northern Cahokia. Surface samples were collected from the surface to a depth of 0.5 feet, 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 were analyzed for dioxins, PCBs, inorganics, VOCs, SVOCs, and pesticides. All surface samples and four 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 including Sites G, H, I, and L and residential areas. Eighty-eight groundwater samples were associated with Sites G, H, I, and L. Fifteen groundwater samples were collected from two residential wells and 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, Old Prairie DuPont Creek and four background areas. Three samples were collected at Creek Segments B, D and F for a total of nine samples. One sample was collected from CS-E and another 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. Samples were collected from Creek Segments B, C, D, E and F, Site M, Reference Area and Old Prairie DuPont Creek before the removal action. After the removal action, 106 clearance samples were collected from Creek Segments B, C, D, E, and F, and Site M. PCBs were analyzed in all clearance 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 to collect different chemicals. All air samples were collected over a 24-hour period. Two samples were collected upwind and two samples were collected downwind from Site G. Three upwind and six downwind samples, two at each site, were collected from Sites H, I, and L. The locations of 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 with appropriate screening comparison values to select chemicals for further evaluation for carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic health effects. Chemicals found at levels greater than comparison values or those for which no comparison values exist were selected for further evaluation. 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 N include dioxins, total PCBs, arsenic, cadmium, lead, thallium, heptachlor epoxide, six polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and carbazole (Table 1). Site G surface soil only had arsenic at a level that exceeded the soil comparison value, presumably because clean surface soil was brought 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 undeveloped sections 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 from residential wells and groundwater at Sites G, H. I, and L (Table 3). IDPH used drinking water comparison values to select chemicals of interest in groundwater.
Surface Water
Twenty-three chemicals of interest were found in the surface water samples collected from Dead Creek Segments B, D, E, and F, Site M, Old Prairie DuPont Creek, and background reference areas (Table 4). Dioxins are of interest because they were detected in the samples, but they cannot 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 removal activities (Table 5) and after removal activities (Table 6). All the chemicals of interest identified in the pre-removal sediments were also chemicals of interest in the post removal sediments, but generally at lower levels.
Air
Review of the results of eight downwind and five upwind air samples yielded twenty chemicals of 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 of Area 1. The source of the chemicals in the upwind samples is not known. The selection of these sampling locations makes it difficult to determine the source of the chemicals of interest, but exposure to these chemicals can still be estimated.
Fish
Twelve chemicals of interest were identified in the fish fillets from Borrow Pit Lake including dioxins, 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 that adverse health effects will result. The potential for exposed persons to experience adverse health effects depends on:
People can be affected by a chemical only if they contact it through an exposure pathway at a sufficient concentration to cause a toxic effect. This requires a source of exposure, an environmental transport medium, a point of exposure, a route of exposure, and a receptor population. A pathway is complete if all of its components are present and if people were exposed in the past, are currently exposed, or will be exposed in the future. If parts of a pathway are absent, data are insufficient to decide whether it is complete, or exposure may occur at some time (past, present, future), then it is a potential pathway. If part of a pathway is not present and will 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 toxicity equivalency factor (TEF) was used for acenaphthylene, fluorene, and fluoranthene and these values were added together to estimate exposure.
Exposure was estimated for a 10-year-old child resident, an adult resident, and an adult worker breathing the chemicals of interest in the air. Exposures were calculated using the upwind and downwind maximum values for each chemical.
Based on the exposure scenarios, dioxins in air may increase the risk of non-cancer adverse health effects over a long period for children and adults residing near Queeny Avenue and workers on these sites and in nearby industries. A moderate increased cancer risk may be associated 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 of dioxins, 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 in segments 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 a maximum of five years indicated that there would be no apparent increased risk of cancer for past exposure to creek sediments.
Remediation of Dead Creek sediments occurred in 2000 and 2001. After remediation, the levels of PCBs and arsenic decreased. Based on the above exposure scenario, exposure to creek sediments would cause no increased risk of cancer. Exposure to dioxins would not be expected to cause adverse health effects if children are exposed over a long period. No other chemicals in creek sediments would be expected to cause adverse health effects.
Surface Water
Surface water samples were collected before the remediation of the creek sediments. Elevated levels of benzene and PCBs were found in the 1999 surface water sampling. Based on the same exposure scenario used for children playing in creek sediments, no increased risk of cancer would be expected. No non-cancer health effects would be expected from exposure to surface water 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 whether adverse health effects might occur from eating fish from Borrow Pit Lake, we used an exposure scenario 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 fish samples. Based on our exposure scenarios, no increased risk of cancer would be expected from eating arsenic in fish caught in Borrow Pit Lake. Because of remediation, current levels of contaminants 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 exposure scenario of young children playing 5 days per week, 35 weeks per year for a maximum of 5 years, no apparent increased risk of cancer would be expected. No non-cancer health effects would 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 result in no apparent increased risk of cancer. No non-cancer health effects would be expected for adults 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 of 1 to 2 feet of clean soil.
In sites H and L elevated levels of PCBs, PAHs, heptachlor epoxide, and arsenic were found in surface soil samples. An exposure scenario of a young child playing 1 day per week, 18 weeks per year for a maximum of 5 years was used.
Based on this exposure scenario, a child would have no apparent increased risk of cancer from playing in contaminated soil. No non-cancer adverse health effects would be expected from exposure to the on-site surface soil.
On-site Contamination
Exposure to chemicals in on-site soil could occur during remediation or otherwise disturbing subsurface soil, waste, and groundwater. Workers remediating site-related contaminants should wear protective clothing as required by the U.S. Department of Labor. Appropriate containment should be used during any further remediation activity to ensure that dust and site-related contaminants do not affect nearby residential areas.
Residential Groundwater
In residential areas, only one well had an elevated level of PCBs; however, because of a local ordinance, wells are not used as a source of drinking water. All areas are connected to the public water supply.
Industrial areas to the north had elevated levels of several chemicals, including VOCs. If this contamination moves toward residential areas, their groundwater may be affected in the future.
The estimated exposure doses were compared with health guidelines for non-cancer health effects. Cancer risks were estimated for those chemicals that are known or suspected carcinogens. From these estimates, IDPH found an increased risk of non-cancer adverse health effects in children from exposure to dioxins in fish from Borrow Pit Lake. No increased risk of cancer 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 dioxins is based on a study where monkeys were exposed to levels similar to the estimated dose for dioxins in fish based on the 1999 sampling. These monkeys exhibited altered developmental and social behavior when exposed to this level of dioxins. Human studies have not suggested similar developmental 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 activities occurred, 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 an increased risk of cancer. USEPA has determined that 1,1-dichloroethene is a possible human carcinogen. Studies on workers who breathed 1,1-dichloroethene have not shown an increase in cancer. These studies, however, are not conclusive because of the small numbers of workers and the short time studied. Animal studies have shown mixed results. Several studies reported an increase 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 an increased risk of cancer. Human studies are not conclusive; however, an increased cancer risk was 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 in humans. The Department of Health and Human Services has determined that methylene chloride can 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 be expected to cause adverse health effects in children. Dead Creek Segment B is fenced and not accessible. Currently, exposure to the levels of chemicals in creek sediments would not be expected to cause adverse health effects in children contacting the sediments. Still, children should be discouraged from playing in the creek because by doing so, they would be unnecessarily exposed to not only chemical contaminants, but to possible bacteriological and viral pathogens.
Before sediment removal in 2001, long-term exposures to sediments in all creek segments may have increased the risk of adverse health effects associated with dioxins and may have posed a low 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. The contribution of flood water to residential soil contamination is not known; however, no adverse health effects would be expected from exposure to the levels of chemicals detected in residential yards. 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 groundwater contamination 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 evaluated children's exposure to contaminants to determine whether adverse health effects would be expected. Based on animal studies, developmental effects could occur in children who routinely eat fish from Borrow Pit Lake that contain elevated levels of dioxins. Parents should follow the proper fish cooking and cleaning guidelines in the Illinois Fishing Information publication from the Department of Natural Resources to reduce exposure to contaminants in fish. This publication 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-term exposure 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 suggest the possibility of developmental health effects in children who routinely eat contaminated fish from this site. Fish sampling and analysis have not been done since remediation of Borrow Pit Lake sediments was completed.
Prior to remediation of creek sediments and the fencing of some sites, exposure to elevated levels of some contaminants may have occurred. Current exposures to site-related chemicals in surface water, unfenced sediments, and soil would not be expected to result in adverse health effects.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND PUBLIC HEALTH ACTION PLAN
IDPH recommends that:
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
This Sauget Area 1 (Dead Creek) public health assessment was prepared by the Illinois Department of Public Health under a cooperative agreement with the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). It was done in accordance with methodology and procedures 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
Table 1. Chemicals of Interest in Site G, H, I, L, and N Surface Soils in parts per million (ppm)
| 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
Table 2. Chemicals of Interest in Residential
and Undeveloped Surface and Subsurface Soils in parts per million (in ppm)
| 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
Table 3. Chemicals of Interest in Groundwater
in parts per billion (ppb)
| 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
Table 4. Chemicals of Interest for Surface
Water in Sauget Area 1 in parts per billion (ppb)
| 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
Next Section Table of Contents