Analysis of Site Investigation Activities
Dutch Boy Site, Chicago, Illinois

Introduction

Pursuant to the request of the Maple Park/Victory Heights Advisory Council, the Technical Outreach Services for Communities (TOSC) Program at Michigan State University has prepared the following evaluation of technical problems related to the investigation of the Dutch Boy site, Chicago, IL.  The site is located at 12000 S. Peoria St. and 901 W. 120^th St., Chicago, and is within the boundaries of the Maple Park and Victory Heights neighborhoods.  In this report, TOSC provides an analysis of the Dutch Boy site investigation and recommendations for additional work.  It is TOSC’s opinion that the work conducted to date at the site is inadequate, and that additional work is needed to ensure the protection of the health of residents who live in very close proximity to the site and to provide an adequate level of cleanup prior to site redevelopment.

The Dutch Boy site was used by NL Industries, Inc. (NL) from 1906 through mid-1977 for the manufacture of lead products and lead-based paints.  The manufacture of lead-based paints was continued through 1980 by ARTRA Group, Inc. (ARTRA).  The manufacturing of lead-based paints at the site ceased in 1980 when ARTRA sold its paint division to Sherwin-Williams Company and donated the property to Goodwill.  (Additional site history is provided at the end of this document as Appendix A.)

The TOSC program has provided assistance to the Advisory Council since March 1997.  TOSC serves as an independent source of technical information and assistance for communities with contaminated sites, and is funded under a grant from the U.S. EPA.  Technical experts at Michigan State University reviewed the ENVIRON Draft Extent of Contamination (Draft EOC) report, dated July 31, 1997, and provided an interpretation of the report to the Advisory Council.  TOSC’s comments on the report were presented to the Council in two Memoranda (dated August 29, 1997 and October 22, 1997); the Council subsequently forwarded the Memoranda to EPA’s Remedial Project Manager in Chicago.  Additionally, TOSC has conducted two educational workshops which addressed community concerns over the Dutch Boy site. 

What is U.S. EPA’s authority at the Dutch Boy Site?

On March 26, 1996, U.S. EPA issued an order to National Lead to conduct certain activities at the Dutch Boy site.  That unilateral Administrative Order (UAO) states that EPA has "the power and authority ... to take, direct, or order all actions necessary to protect public health, welfare, or the environment or to prevent, abate, or minimize an actual or threatened release of hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants, or hazardous or solid waste on, at, or from the Site.”  From this statement of EPA’s authority, we infer that U.S. EPA has broad powers to take the requisite actions to protect human health and the environment; and the authority to order National Lead to conduct additional site work to protect human health and the environment.

What contaminants of concern are present at the site?

The ENVIRON Draft EOC report provides evidence that the Dutch Boy site is contaminated with lead and other chemicals, including asbestos and petroleum-based organic chemicals.  The report also describes ENVIRON’s sampling and analysis of volatile organic chemicals (VOCs).  Unfortunately, because of poor analytical methodology, the extent to which the site is contaminated with VOCs cannot be determined.

Is lead still present on the Dutch Boy site?

Based on the ENVIRON Draft EOC Report, there are two areas of the site that are highly contaminated with lead.  The first area of high contamination is the western section of the site.  That area is approximately 150 feet in width and 500 feet in length (in the north-south direction).  Soils in some locations in this area contain high lead concentrations to a depth of at least 6-7 feet.  The second area is the region around the former 3-story mill building.  In this area, lead has been found at depths of up to 2 feet.

How contaminated are the soils with respect to lead?

Significant lead contamination has occurred on the site, both in the surface and subsurface soils.  The concentrations in the surface soils range from 54 to 18,300 mg/kg.  The concentrations in the subsurface soils range from 3.1 to almost 300,000 mg/kg.  The data presented in the ENVIRON Draft EOC Report indicate that lead is present at depths significantly below the ground surface.  For example, in some locations the concentrations of lead at depths of 5-6 ft. below ground surface (bgs)are more than ten times greater than the clean-up goal (CUG) of 1,400 mg/kg.  Concentrations of lead in the subsurface soils ranged up to 56,000 mg/kg.  The presence of lead at depths of at least 5-6 ft. bgs is of particular concern, especially since the site is scheduled for redevelopment.  If foundations are dug during the redevelopment effort, contaminated soils may be disturbed and significant risk of exposure of lead to construction workers and members of the community may occur.

How does concentration of lead vary as one moves away from the site?

The concentration of lead found in the areas adjacent to the site ranged from 46 to 16,200 mg/kg with 30 of 66 samples exceeding a concentration of 1,000 mg/kg.  Significant concentrations (>1,000 mg/kg) exist within 500 ft. of the site in all directions.  In most directions (6 of 8 transects), concentrations greater than 400 mg/kg exist within 1,000 ft. of the center of the site. 

What is the likely origin of the lead?

Based upon the historical uses of the Dutch Boy site, it is the opinion of TOSC and the U.S. EPA that lead paint manufacturing at the site is the most likely cause of the contamination at the site.   The data in the ENVIRON Draft EOC report also indicate that the concentration of lead generally decreases with distance from the site, clearly implicating the site as the source.  Although ENVIRON states that "the off-Site sampling results also show properties with elevated lead concentrations that are not Site-related," ENVIRON provides no justification for this statement.  It is possible that a significant fraction of the lead on the off-site properties may not have originated from the Dutch Boy site.  However, this fact alone does not nullify NL’s responsibility in cleaning up the site and surrounding areas as there is a very strong indication that lead did originate from Dutch Boy paint operations.

Has the ENVIRON Draft EOC Report delineated the extent of contamination?

It is TOSC’s opinion that the extent of contamination at the site has not been completely delineated.   The ENVIRON Draft EOC report is incomplete with respect to the chemical analyses and sampling that have been conducted.  For example, from the report, it is not possible to determine the location of the off-site soil sampling.  As such, TOSC suggests that a complete description of the location of each sampling site be provided in a revised report.  TOSC also has numerous concerns with the quality of the data that is presented.  As such, we are suggesting that more thorough sampling and analysis activities be conducted. Included in that sampling should be a grid-type-sampling plan that can be used to determine the extent of lead contamination on residential properties.

From the ENVIRON Draft EOC report, it appears that lead is present at significant depths in the on-site soils.  It would be prudent, therefore, to determine the lead concentrations in residential surface and subsurface soils (see table below).  Off-site sampling is especially important as citizens may have frequent contact with soils in residential, school and other neighborhood settings.  Those contacts may occur as a result of children playing in the contaminated soils or where residents are producing vegetables in their gardens. 

In the table provided below, TOSC summarizes our recommendations for necessary soil sampling and chemical analyses to determine the extent of contamination on the Dutch Boy site and in locations near the site.

Recommendations for Additional Sampling and Analysis

Was the risk assessment adequate for the Dutch Boy site?

U.S. EPA used a streamlined risk evaluation to determine the on-site lead clean-up goal (CUG) under an occupational scenario.  It is TOSC’s opinion that the risk assessment used is seriously flawed because no site-specific data have been used.  In its risk assessment, U.S. EPA has not taken into account that residents of the two communities are likely to have been exposed to lead and may be further exposed in the future.  The risk evaluation and, therefore, the proposed CUG are unacceptable.  Below, we provide justification for that conclusion.

·        The Edward White Elementary School property is approximately 1000 feet from the boundary of the Dutch Boy site and within 500 ft. of the area of significant contamination (that is, a lead concentration greater than 500 mg/kg).  Residential properties are also located in the vicinity of the site.  By assessing the site exclusively for future industrial use, the model ignores the site’s proximity to the community and thus seriously neglects the multiple exposure routes that exist.  Further, children have historically accessed the site, and any risk assessment of the site needs to include the risk to children.  EPA’s risk assessment, however, assumes that children will be prohibited from accessing the site and thus does not consider risk to children.  That omission represents a serious flaw in the risk assessment.  In a densely populated setting such as the site, banning an important segment of the population, namely children, also imposes a psychological burden upon the community.  Unless the site is properly cleaned up, it will forever represent a legacy of contamination.

 ·        The risk assessment model that was employed for this site ignores the risk posed by working parents bringing dust and soil home from the work place.  Therefore, parents of young children are either deprived of potential employment opportunities or are constrained from traveling freely from the workplace to home.  (For example, mothers with infants may rush to nurseries and homes during break time or right after work to nurse their babies without chance for a shower or change of clothes.)  The risk assessment needs to account for workplace exposures and the potential for workplace-to-home transmission.

·        A target blood lead level of 10 mg/dl was used in the risk assessment model.  While TOSC recognizes that the U.S. EPA presently uses 10 mg/dl as the target blood lead concentration for children, we would like to note that neurodevelopmental effects are believed to occur in children whose blood lead level is 10 mg/dl.  Since maternal blood lead diffuses readily to the fetus, maximum effort should be made to protect human health by ensuring a maternal blood lead concentration below 5 mg/dl.

·        The baseline blood lead level is intended to represent the best estimate of the blood lead level in adults that have not been exposed to lead-contaminated soil from the site.  A baseline blood lead level of 2.2 mg/dl was used in the model as an estimation of the background blood lead level in the adults living in the neighborhood.  However, there is no evidence to indicate that the vast majority of adults living in the neighborhood have a blood lead level less than or equal to 2.2 mg/dl.  In fact, based on conservative estimates, it is likely that, due to exposure to lead during childhood, many adults in this community may have grown up with blood lead levels of 15 mg/dl or greater.  Therefore, the value of 2.2 mg/dl may not accurately represent the total body burden of lead that has been accumulated through residents’ lifetimes.   As a result, the use of a 2.2 mg/dl blood lead level to determine the CUG may not provide sufficient protection from the deleterious effects of lead.

·        The risk assessment lacks any calculation of the unavoidable background exposure to lead from other sources, such as drinking water, dust, soil, food and air, to which citizens may be exposed.  Therefore, this assessment does not take into account that people on or near the site increase their lead exposures through such routine activities as drinking, eating and breathing.  Site-specific data for lead concentrations in each medium should be gathered for inclusion in the risk assessment.

 ·        The Leadville methodology uses an input lead absorption fraction of 0.12.  That value was determined by using a relative absorption factor of 60% and an initial lead absorption fraction of 0.2.  The risk assessment lacks justification for the 60% relative absorption factor, which may underestimate the risk from ingested lead.  TOSC is requesting that justification of the value of 60% for the relative absorption factor be provided.

What is the risk to community residents due to non-occupational exposure?

To date, the risk to community residents due to non-occupational exposure has not been determined.  Since the Leadville methodology that was used to determine the CUG for lead at on-site locations has been developed for occupational exposure, we concur with Lara Pullen’s conclusion that there is no justification to use that risk assessment model to determine clean-up criteria for off-site areas.  TOSC, therefore, believes that it is imperative that the U.S. EPA determine risk-based clean-up goals for the non-industrial areas outside the site.

Do the current clean up criteria for the Dutch Boy site sufficiently protect human health?

It is our understanding that since the remediation of the site is to be accomplished under Section 106 (a) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C Section 9606(a), all local, state and tribal Applicable, Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs) must be met.  As such, under the State of Illinois regulations (35 Illinois Administrative Code Part 742), the site remediation (clean-up) criteria may be determined using the value determined from the methodology documented in the Tiered Approach to Corrective Action Objectives (TACO) report rather than that determined by U.S. EPA using the Leadville methodology (unless that value were more stringent than the ARARs). As such, TOSC continues to question why the TACO regulations are not an ARAR.

Most importantly, NL has not made a sufficient effort to ensure that the health and safety of those affected by the site are adequately protected.  Requirements specified under the UAO have not been met.  These include:

1.      Identifying the vertical and horizontal extent of on-site soil contamination;

2.      Determination of the background concentrations of lead in soils in the vicinity of the site; and

3.      The determination as to whether lead is present at levels above background concentrations beyond the boundaries of the site.

In conclusion, what are the recommendations of TOSC?

In order to protect human health as required under the UAO, TOSC makes the following recommendations.

1.      The U.S. EPA should revise the on-site lead clean-up goal (CUG) so that the health and safety of the population residing in the affected communities is protected, especially since residents may be exposed to lead from numerous other sources.

2.      Additional soil sampling in residential areas should be conducted to determine the extent of contamination of various chemicals (see Table above).

3.      Additional on-site sampling should be conducted to further and adequately characterize the extent of contamination (see Table above.)  On-site cleanup goals (CUGs) should be developed for the other contaminants that were found on the site, including asbestos and petroleum-based organic chemicals.

4.      The U.S. EPA should set off-site CUGs for lead and any other relevant chemical contaminants, taking into account all ARARs.

5.      The health assessment proposed by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) should be conducted to ensure that intervention and protection measures will be implemented, in a timely manner, to address the health effects that may have resulted from a lifetime exposure to lead and possibly other chemicals present at the site.  Additionally, the ATSDR should ensure that all proposed CUGs provide adequate protection of human health.       

6.      Based upon all these concerns, the U.S. EPA should enforce the UAO to the fullest extent of the law, so as to provide the necessary protection of human health and safety.

Appendix A:  Dutch Boy Site History

The Dutch Boy site was used by NL Industries, Inc. (NL) from 1906 through mid-1977 for the manufacture of lead and lead-based paints.  The manufacture of lead-based paints was continued through 1980 by ARTRA Group, Inc. (ARTRA).  The manufacturing of lead-based paints at the site ceased in 1980 when ARTRA sold its paint division to Sherwin-Williams Company and donated the property to Goodwill. 

Demolition of the steel and brick building on the site began in 1983 and was terminated in 1986 when the Illinois Department of Public Health (IDPH), the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) and the City of Chicago found that lead and asbestos dust created by the demolition activities posed an imminent danger to the community.  In 1986, the IDPH notified the IEPA that five cases of lead poisoning that had resulted could be traced to lead at the site.  The source of lead poisoning was attributed to solid lead particles, which had become airborne during demolition activities.  Asbestos was also detected inside the building structures.

In June 1986, IEPA initiated an immediate removal at the site.  Among the materials removed were surficial solids, both suspected and known to contain lead and/or asbestos; liquids, solids and sludges from aboveground and underground storage; and process/ production equipment and debris.  IEPA also sampled and analyzed the soil for lead contamination.  The results indicated significant contamination, with approximately 140 cubic yards of soil containing greater than 1% lead.  Several site investigations were conducted subsequent to the removal effort.  All of these indicated on-site contamination with lead.  A study by Toxcon Engineering Company, Inc. in June 1987, also indicated off-site contamination. 

During the period of time from 1986 until 1995, the site was apparently visited by children and homeless persons.  Based upon the site assessments that were conducted, Ecology and Environment, Inc. (E&E), a contractor to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), concluded that the site should be secured and an extent of contamination study should be conducted to determine the extent of lead-contamination at the site. On March 26, 1996, a unilateral Administrative Order (UAO) was issued to NL by William E. Muno, Director, Superfund Division, U.S.EPA, Region 5.  It became effective 10 business days after its issuance.  Among the requirements of the order was an extent of contamination study.  In summer of 1996, the site was secured by the installation of a six-foot fence around the periphery of the site.