The Village of DePue: Where are they way-above-normal? - Part 5

Here is what the DePue Press Release states:

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.

The folks who support the claims of the Cleanup DePue website believe that:

• “The companies spent millions of dollars on consultants in an attempt to show that this SuperFund site poses no significant risks."
• The companies "delivered a superficial plan that barely touches many of the contaminated areas, leaves the slag pile and other waste in place, does nothing to stop contamination from seeping into the groundwater, and leaves backyards, playgrounds and Lake DePue without real remediation.”
• "Any realistic assessment of health risks has to take these multiple, constant and long-term exposures into account.”
• The remediation plan the companies submitted is "not even close to what’s needed.”
• The companies are "jeopardizing the health and well-being of the children, families and wildlife in DePue,”

I look at those claims and I ask, how are they substantiated?  That is, on what basis is the contention made that the current situation in DePue is "jeopardizing the health and well-being of the children, families and wildlife?"  How is that determination of jeopardizing being made?

My last four posts have been setting the groundwork to answer that question.  I have no dog in this hunt.  I am solely interested in ascertaining the contention of harm because of a Superfund site in the near vicinity.  It is easy for me to look at this objectively because I don't live there.  But even if I did, the same methodology would still be used to determine if the site is indeed "jeopardizing the health and well-being of the children, families and wildlife in DePue."

When I read that the city is now being represented by a university, I assume that the university is giving them unbiased and sound risk assessment advice on how to properly gauge the effectiveness of the plan that the responsible companies have submitted to the Illinois EPA.

When I read that Northwestern University is assisting them and has developed their website - Cleanup DePue.org - I assume that the information provided on that site is accurate.  I also assume that the Northwestern University's Environmental Advocacy Center - which is providing DePue with free legal representation - is aware of what has been stated in the Press Release that is available on the website.

When I read in the Press Release that Nancy Loeb, director of the Environmental Advocacy Clinic at Northwestern University School of Law’s Bluhm Legal Clinic makes the following statement:

“The companies spent millions of dollars on consultants in an attempt to show that this SuperFund site poses no significant risks, and they delivered a superficial plan that barely touches many of the contaminated areas, leaves the slag pile and other waste in place, does nothing to stop contamination from seeping into the groundwater, and leaves backyards, playgrounds and Lake DePue without real remediation.”

I assume that there is real data supporting that statement.  As is stands now, Cleanup DePue and the folks representing Northwestern University, are telling the citizens and the world that there is a real risk to human health and the environment because of this Superfund site.

They tell me, and the world, to "visit www.CleanUpDePue.org to see an interactive map that details the way-above-normal concentrations of pollutants at hundreds of contaminated sites."  Well I did.  And right now, at least for the baseball field, there is no reason for concern.  That is, the amount of contaminants present in the soil and in the groundwater are below the levels necessary to present a real risk for short term or long term - chronic - health concerns.

I guess we need to look at Mr. Garcia's samples for the other four stops on the virtual tour.  If the baseball field does not have concentrations "way-above-normal", maybe somewhere else in DePue these way-above-normal concentrations have been found.

Here are all the five sites on the virtual tour and the concentrations detected in the five samples Mr. Garcia's students collected:

The Lake DePue sample results are in question since they are identified in mg/kg.  The "Virtual Tour Stop #5: Lake DePue" identifies this as a water sample and should be in mg/L.  I am going to assume that the cadmium listed at "79.05 mg/kg" is actually 79.05 mg/L.  That being the case, only the cadmium in the lake throws up a red flag.  All the other concentrations are far below health based screening levels.

All these additional sites, similar to the baseball field, do not show concentrations "way-above-normal."   In fact, these levels are normal and will pose no health or environmental concerns requiring remediation or other measures.

So what about the cadmium that Mr. Garcia's class found in the lake?  One sample does not a determination make.  Based on what I have seen on the Cleanup DePue website, there have been other samples collected from Lake DePue that can be looked at for cadmium:

Source

Notice at the top it says "Download water & groundwater samples only?"  Well I did.  Here is what the excel spreadsheet shows (cleaned up and sorted - no modification to the data too place)

Surface Water Samples

Shoreline Seep

Based on these samples, sampled in 2006 and 2007, cadmium does not seem to be elevated detected at a high of  0.0006 mg/L.  Based on this, I would now have to question the cadmium results shown for Mr. Garcia's water sample from the lake.

We cannot, however, ignore cadmium as it is a chemical of concern (CoC) for this site:

The sediment samples from the ditch leading to Lake DePue, when compared to sediment samples from Turner lake, showed elevated levels of cobalt, cadmium, copper, mercury, selenium and zinc. These same metals, with the exception of cobalt, were also found at elevated levels in sediment samples taken from Lake DePue. Surface water samples from Lake DePue and the ditch leading to the lake, when compared to Turner Lake water, had elevated levels of cadmium, copper, zinc and ammonia. (Fact Sheet #1 1992)

So we know cadmium is present in 1992.  Samples of the lake in 2006 and 2007 show very low concentrations of cadmium.  Mr. Garcia reports 79.05 mg/kg for his sample.  This needs to be rectified with additional samples - more than one to statistically show what we can assume is the "true" concentration for cadmium in the lake at this time.

If I am going to assume Mr. Garcia's sample results are valid and make a statement that the amount of contaminates he found were below EPA's screening levels, then I must also assume that he found 79.05 mg/kg of cadmium in the lake.  I suspect he did not based on other samples collected.  Until I have conformation telling me otherwise, I will have to assume that it is 79.05 mg/kg.

Based on this assumption - that Mr. Garcia's data is representative of the conditions at the five locations sampled - none of these results were "way-above-normal."  That statement is not backed up by his sample results or the sample results collected by other parties.  Looking at what data is available, my conclusion would be that there is no elevated chronic health risk "jeopardizing the health and well-being of the children, families and wildlife in DePue.”

Unless I am missing some other data, I am unsure why Nancy Loeb, director of the Environmental Advocacy Clinic at Northwestern University School of Law’s Bluhm Legal Clinic is telling DePue that the potential responsible parties (PRP), Mobile and CBS, have:

"...delivered a superficial plan that barely touches many of the contaminated areas, leaves the slag pile and other waste in place, does nothing to stop contamination from seeping into the groundwater, and leaves backyards, playgrounds and Lake DePue without real remediation.”

I am not seeing it, based on the data that they have presented on their website, CleanupDePue.org.

Okay, so maybe there are other backyards, playgrounds, and living areas that have contamination "way-above-normal."   They are telling me to go to their webpage and look.  I have.  I do not see it.  Maybe it is in one of those red dots on that interactive map...what am I missing...??


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

.