The Village of DePue: Looking at red dots - Part 6

In the Chicago Tribune news article that started this series of posts, my eyes sent a signal to my brain when I read this:

But many say the involvement of Northwestern University's Environmental Advocacy Center — which is providing DePue with free legal representation — has given them some much-needed clout and could help the town finally realize its goal of eliminating or containing the contamination.

My brain told me that something must be happening there in DePue if Northwester University's Environmental Advocacy Center has gotten involved.

Now I know nothing about Northwestern University or their advocacy center.  My interest was piqued because they - a university - had gotten involved, and, that involvement was with a center that had the term "environment" in its name.

"University" plus "environment" equals "you got my interest."

So when I then read this:

"All the complaining we've done, we've learned that there's good reason for us to be worried about the type of cleanup we get here."

...I'm wondering what the heck is going on in DePue?

I work in the environmental field and I have worked for a plethora of private companies and governmental organization that deal with remediation and site cleanup.  I also have worked for hundreds of companies that are guilty of past behavior - the ones who get tagged as Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs).  I know how my industry - including the regulators - behave in this type of situation where contamination from previous activities - legacy property - has initiated a cleanup order.

I know how it works.  I know the sampling that must be done.  I know the qualifications of the guys who collect and analyze and interpret the results.  They are not perfect, and they get it wrong, but the overall methodology does not leave too many stones unturned.  There is tons of data from these sites and everything is made available for public feedback.

So with that in mind, my curiosity piqued, and reading "we've learned that there's good reason for us to be worried about the type of cleanup we get here,"  I set out to see for myself.

I don't see anything to be worried about...yet.

According to the Press Release that appears on the Cleanup DePue organizations website, these folks contend:

The slag and waste left behind continue to leach heavy metals and carcinogens into ground water that runs off into Lake DePue, which flows directly into the Illinois River. Contaminated debris blows onto public and private property throughout the village and surrounding natural areas, exposing residents -- more than a quarter of whom are children under the age of 16 -- and local wildlife to arsenic and heavy metals such as lead, mercury and cadmium. Visit www.CleanUpDePue.org to see an interactive map that details the way-above-normal concentrations of pollutants at hundreds of contaminated sites.

I went looking for these "way-above-normal concentrations of pollutants at hundreds of contaminated sites."

I am giving the Cleanup DePue folks the benefit of the doubt by not dismissing their claims.  I don't automatically think their  "just a bunch of hicks out here crying about our town being contaminated."  With Northwest University involved, and being told in the Press Release:

The map shows the location for 1,976 samples taken by the companies over the past several years, exactly which contaminants were found in each sample, and the health risks of residents’ prolonged exposure to these contaminants. The website and map were built under grants from the Initiative for Sustainability and Energy at Northwestern (ISEN) and the Environmental Chemical Sciences Program of the  National Science Foundation's Division of Chemistry, Northwestern University Chemistry student interns worked over six month to analyze, interpret, and enter the data that you see on the map." 

...I'm thinking I hit the goldmine in being able to use viable data to support a claim of risk.

The Press Release tells me there is an  "interactive map that details the way-above-normal concentrations of pollutants at hundreds of contaminated sites," and that map was put together with funds provided by the University and the National Science Foundation, and "Northwestern University Chemistry student interns worked over six month to analyze, interpret, and enter the data that you see on the map," I'm looking a good, sound, peer reviewed, scientifically valid information.

I started writing Post Number 1 because of what I know about the industry - my industry - and the claim that "we've learned that there's good reason for us to be worried about the type of cleanup we get here."

What did they learn?  What are they being told?  Does that data Northwestern University "worked over six month to analyze, interpret, and enter" into the interactive map detail "the way-above-normal concentrations of pollutants at hundreds of contaminated sites."

My last two posts dealt with Mr. Garcia, a science teacher at DePue High School "who had his class sample soil and water to document unsafe concentrations of pollutants."  I looked at this data.  Nothing that even comes close to "way-above-normal concentrations."

Now it's time to look at the rest of the data.  I have looked at a few of the red dots on the map already:

 Now I would love to spend my two days before Christmas looking at all those red dots.  Even I'm not that nerdy to do that.  Instead, I'm going to bias my chance of finding a "way-above-normal concentration" somewhere close to where the contaminated sites are.

Once again.  I do not care about what is on the contaminated site.  I only care about what comes off that site and the exposure level the folks in DePue are forced to live with.  If you tell me that there is "way-above-normal concentrations" present then I expect to see them.  "Way-above-normal concentrations" would be an indication of exposure and we could estimate the risk of a health affect from the contaminants these folks are exposed to.

That's how we do it.  We are looking to estimate the dose that is being received by the people who live in DePue.  "Way-above-normal concentrations" would indicate a dose that could be "jeopardizing the health and well-being of the children, families and wildlife in DePue.”

So where should I start looking...

Here is what we know about where the contaminated property is located and its proximity to where people live.:

Source

OU-1: South Ditch Contaminated Sediments
OU-2: Phosphogypsum Stack
OU-3: Former Plant Site Area (FPSA)
OU-4: Off-site Soils
OU-5: DePue Lake Sediments and the Flood Plain

From the map above, it looks like samples from OU-4 represent the concentrations for contaminants that DePue folks would be exposed to.  What I find there - where people live, work, and play - would support the claim:

"Contaminated debris blows onto public and private property throughout the village and surrounding natural areas, exposing residents -- more than a quarter of whom are children under the age of 16 -- and local wildlife to arsenic and heavy metals such as lead, mercury and cadmium."

Mr. Garcia's samples did not support that claim.  So what did they find in the soil samples collected where people live?  I expect the contamination in OU-2 and OU-3 to be "way-above-normal concentrations."  I need the concentrations to be below soil screening levels in the areas where people live.

Wait a minute!  The website allows me to download an Excel file that has all the soil sampling data that has been collected!  I can look at it all.  Less bias on my part, less randomness, less leaving something out.  Cool!

I can then look at all the samples for OS-4 and find out which samples have the highest concentrations of the 12 contaminants Mr. Garcia looked at.  I don't care about potassium, sodium, manganese, pH, or anything else.  I want to look at the metals we normally consider toxic - the RCRA 8 and copper, nickel, and zinc, but I'll list the others simply because they are there.

I am also going to assume that the values entered into this spreadsheet are in mg/kg - ppm concentrations.  Looking at OU-4 data, I have 125 individual sample results.

So here is what I found:

Yellow = Chemicals of Concern for public health.  Red indicates the highest concentration found that exceeds the soil screening level for residence chronic health.  If the highest value is not in red, there were no samples that exceeded the SSL and those sites do not pose a human health risk for that chemical at that concentration.

So...life would have been a heck of a lot easier for me if they were all less than the screening level.  I could have ended this series of posts with a brief statement of no concern.  But some of the OU-4 samples did come show a concentration above the screening level.  How much higher will determine my concern.

Source

Before we get into this, a little reminder about the generic soil screening levels I am using:

The generic SSLs [are] calculated from the same equations used in the simple site-specific methodology, but are based on a number of default assumptions chosen to be protective of human health for most site conditions.  Generic SSLs can be used in place of site-specific screening levels; however, they are expected to be generally more conservative than site-specific levels. (Page 3)

Because I am doing this research in real time, I am writing about what I see and what I find out.  It would be easy for me to ignore things, such as the Thallium, but I want my work to stand scrutiny.  If it cannot be explained then more work will need to be done.  I am trying to provide information as well as support the claim that there are "way-above-normal concentrations of pollutants at hundreds of contaminated sites."

So far we have levels for some chemicals of concern (in red) that exceed the generic SSL.  I need to pause here and change my initial assumption that there is nothing to worry about based on Mr. Garcia's samples.  There are sample sites where the townsfolk of DePue have access to that appear to exceed the level that is accepted to be protective of public health.

The question I need to ask now is; "do any of the seven chemicals in red that exceed the SSL pose a health risk at that concentration?"  If yes, how many locations are at an unsafe level and where are they located?

Dang...two day to Christmas and I am going to be looking at an Excel file.  Maybe there is something there that they see...maybe...


Next post: The Village of DePue: "A" is for Arsenic - Part 7

.