Jump to main content.


Cosden Oil & Chemical Co. Ecological Risk Assessment

Site Description/History

Environmental Setting

In this section, the history of the site, along with endangered species known (or suspected) to be at the site, is described. Information about the historical and current land-use, as well as types of habitats, and known or suspected sources of contamination.

Site Description

The site is located on the south bank of the Little Calumet River between I-94 and Paxton Avenue (Calumet City, Illinois). It is bound by the river on the north and B & O Railroad on the south. Industrial properties are located east and southwest of the site, and vacant land is located to the west and southeast. The CID Landfill is directly across the river. Beaubien Preserve, Cook County Forest Preserve District, is immediately downstream of the site on the opposite (north) bank, and has a public boat launch on the Little Calumet River.

Sensitive Habitats

Palustrine wetlands were identified from the Lake Calumet and Blue Island wetlands maps. A ditch along the south boundary of the site is classified as an emergent, semipermanently flooded, excavated wetland. An approximately 60- to 70-acre complex of forest and emergent vegetation wetlands is located directly west of the site, with approximately equal portions north and south of the railroad. The northern portion, which is closest to the site, has been partially drained or ditched and is seasonally or temporarily flooded. Most of the southern portion is semipermanently flooded, the remainder is seasonally flooded. The September 30 site visit was performed to determine whether this wetland complex might receive runoff from the site via the southern ditch. The ditch is heavily vegetated with shrubs, grasses and weeds, and held standing water throughout most of its length adjacent to the site. However, it dried up before it reached I-94, and the ditch itself ends short of the I-94 overpass. No subsurface drains or culverts were located along the western portion of the ditch, although the dense vegetation hampered the search. It appears that the ditch is unlikely to discharge to the wetland complex west of I-94.

Three small (1 to 2 acre) forest and emergent vegetation wetlands are located within a half mile east, south, and southwest of the site, but are unlikely to receive site-related contaminants.

The Beaubien Preserve has approximately 0.8 mi frontage of temporarily and seasonally flooded deciduous forest and emergent vegetation wetlands along the opposite bank of the Little Calumet River immediately downstream of the site. Another small (20 acre) temporarily flooded mixed forest and emergent vegetation wetland is near the river by Altgeld Gardens, west of Beaubien Preserve. This wetland is not shown as directly fronting the river, and is classified as having partial drainage. The next closest wetlands along the river are two deciduous forest palustrine wetlands almost 3 miles downstream. One, with about 0.14 mi river frontage, is on the north bank between the river and the rail spur south of 127th Street, and is temporarily flooded. The other, with approximately 0.5 mi river frontage, is on the south bank west of the rail bridge, part of the Whistler Preserve, Cook County Forest Preserve District, Riverdale, and is seasonally flooded.

Threatened and Endangered Species


Table 1. Threatened and Endangered Species: Animals

Species Common Name Scientific Name Status* Thumbnail image
(click for full image)
Black-crowned night heron Nycticorax nycticorax ST
thumbnail of black crowned night heron
Double-crested cormorant Phalacrocorax auritus ST thumbnail of double crested cormorant
Great egret Casmerodius albus ST thumbnail of great egret
Great blue heron Ardea herodias
NL
thumbnail of Great Blue Heron

Lake Calumet is about 2.5 mi north of the landfill (about 3 mi upstream). It is unlikely to receive contaminants from the landfill, but is significant in that it contains the above listed species. The former three species are listed as state threatened. The foraging distance of great blue herons ranges from 1 to 5 mi or more (U.S. EPA 1993), and therefore may include the Little Calumet River adjacent to and downstream from the landfill. The same is probably true of the other species. Other state-listed birds at Lake Calumet include common moorhens, pied-billed grebes, least bitterns, black tern, and yellow-headed blackbirds.

* Status: ST = listed as threatened in the state; NL = not threatened or endangered



SLERA (Screening Level Risk Assessment):
Screening Level Problem Formulation (Step 1)

For this site, the Region 5 ecologist (James Chapman) performed the Ecological Risk Assessment, including calculation of Hazard Quotients (HQ), deciding on potential assessment endpoints and conceptual site models (See ERA Guidance Step 3 for more information on endpoints and site models).

This section describes the likely sources of contamination, what the contaminants are, and what plants and animals at the site are likely to be affected by those contaminants and in what manner.

Contaminants of Potential Ecological Concern (COPECs)

Soil, sediment, surface water and groundwater were sampled July 28-29, 1993, for the Expanded Site Investigation (ESI). The chemicals with concentrations above background concentrations are as follows:

Table 2. Chemicals with Media Concentrations that Exceed Background Concentrations

Soil samples (4 total samples) Number samples exceeding background Sediment samples (10 total samples) Number samples exceeding background
Chloromethane
1
Phenol
1
Acetone
1
Fluorene
1
Styrene
1
Phenanthrene
1
Aroclor-1260
1
Anthracene
1
Aluminum (Al)
1
Fluoranthene
1
Barium (Ba)
2
Benzo(a)anthracene
1
Cadmium (Cd)
2
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (BHEP)
1
Calcium (Ca)
1
4,4'-DDD
1
Chromium (Cr)
3
4,4'-DDT
1
Copper (Cu)
1
Aluminum (Al)
5
Iron (Fe)
1
Antimony (Sb)
2
Lead (Pb)
1
Barium (Ba)
5
Magnesium (Mg)
1
Beryllium (Be)
3
Manganese (Mn)
2
Cadmium (Cd)
3
Nickel (Ni)
2
Chromium (Cr)
6
Silver (Ag)
2
Cobalt (Co)
5
Vanadium (V)
1
Iron (Fe)
3
Zinc (Zn)
1
Nickel (Ni)
4
    Potassium (K)
2
    Thallium (Tl)
2
    Vanadium (V)
2
  • Surface water (2 total samples) - no samples exceeded background concentrations
  • Groundwater (3 total samples) - no samples exceeded background concentrations

 

Aluminum, barium, beryllium, cobalt, iron, potassium, thallium, and vanadium are eliminated from further consideration in soil, sediment, or both because the detections are below the approximate 95th percentile concentrations for soils in the eastern United States (Table 1).


Table 3. Maximum Detections for Cosden Oil and 95th percentile concentrations for the eastern United States.

Element Medium
(sediment or soil)
Maximum Detection (mg/kg) Approximate 95th Percentile* (mg/kg)
Aluminum (Al) sediment 43,000 100,000**
soil 21.8
Barium (Ba) sediment 124 1500**
soil 216
Beryllium (Be) sediment 1.5 3.5
Cobalt (Co) sediment 11.8 39
Iron (Fe) soil 51,700 100,000**
Potassium (K) sediment 1460 27,000***
Thallium (Tl) sediment 0.38 1.0 (4)
Vanadium (V) sediment 73.7 270
soil 58.4

* Approximate 95th percentile in eastern United States soils calculated as geometric mean x (geometric deviation)2 (Shacklette and Boerngen 1984), except where otherwise noted. The term "approximate" is used because the equation is based on a two-tailed distribution.

** Maximum concentration in the eastern United States is used because the approximate 95th percentile value exceeded the maximum.

*** Approximate 95th percentile in eastern United States soils calculated as mean + (2 x standard deviation) because the distribution is normal (not log-normal) (Shacklette and Boerngen 1984).

(4) Upper range of values commonly found in topsoils (Kabata-Pendias and Pendias 1992).


Fate, Transport, and Ecotoxicity

Only those chemicals likely to contribute to the potential ecological risks of the site are discussed in this section. This procedure is followed because the screening level ecological risk assessment (SLERA) is based on a screening comparison of the concentrations of COPECs with benchmark guidelines by media (soil, sediment, or surface water). This numerical comparison results in a Hazard Quotient; if the HQ is greater than one, the potential for ecological risk by that COPEC is present. (See Step 2 of the Guidance for more details.)

The benchmark values are sufficiently conservative so that chemicals detected at concentrations below the guidelines are not expected to exhibit significant ecological effects, even if fully bioavailable. Since fate, transport and toxicity variables do not modify the outcome of the screening (these effects are embedded in the derivation of the particular guidelines), discussions of these processes for the chemicals screened out are unlikely to contribute meaningful information to the SLERA.


SLERA: Risk Calculations/Exposure Estimates (Step 2)

This section includes calculations of Hazard Quotients and calculated estimations of risk by COPECs to potential receptors in different media (soil, sediment, surface water). This step involves the comparison of the concentrations of COPECs with benchmark guidelines by media (sediment, soil, surface water). If the maximum concentration of a chemical found at the site exceeds the screening benchmark guideline, then there is the potential for risk and further study is needed to clarify that risk. (See SLERA Step 2 for more information on the screening process, including calculating Hazard Quotients.)

Ecotoxicological Benchmark Values

Exposure Estimates

The SLERA was performed with the following conservative assumptions (See SLERA Step 2 for more information on these commonly used assumptions):

  1. Bioavailability - 100%, with the exceptions of the influence of sediment total organic carbon (TOC - assumed to be 1% in the absence of site-specific information);
  2. Area use factor - 100%;
  3. Contaminant level - maximum sample concentration.

Risk Characterization

Comparisons of the concentrations of Chemicals of Potential Ecological Concern (COPEC) with toxicological guidelines are given in Table 4 for soils and Table 5 for sediments.

Toxicological benchmark values are unavailable for chloromethane, acetone, antimony, calcium, magnesium, and manganese. Comparisons are made with literature-based eastern United States soil background concentrations for the elements lacking toxicological guidelines. The results show that 1 sample each of calcium, magnesium, and manganese, and 2 samples of antimony, are elevated above commonly occurring soil levels, but the comparisons do not indicate whether there are potential toxicological concerns associated with these levels. Chloromethane and acetone are unlikely to cause significant ecological effects because they are highly volatile and dissipate rapidly at the soil surface, and because they were detected above background in only one sample (i.e., they do not appear to be widespread contaminants at this site).

The results show there is widespread, but generally low, contamination across the site by a few inorganics: cadmium, chromium, and nickel. These elements marginally exceed the lowest levels of concern in the majority of samples in which they are detected. Sample results elevated above potentially severe levels of concern are limited to the western portion of the site, specifically cadmium, copper, lead, and zinc in the soil within the styrene monomer tank berms (SS01, in which chloromethane and acetone are also detected), and chromium, iron, and DDT/DDD in ditch sediments south of the tanks (ST09 and ST11). Elevated concentrations of inorganics that lack toxicological guidelines occur in similar areas: calcium and magnesium near the berms (SS03), antimony in the ditches south of the tanks (ST09 and ST10), and manganese in the drum storage area (SS02) near the aforementioned ditches.

Calcium, magnesium, and manganese are also nutrients, and are unlikely to present ecological problems in the limited areas where they are elevated. The same applies to the two samples with elevated iron. Antimony is elevated above background in two samples - the ditch (ST10) and the nearby low-lying area (ST09). The potential ecological risks are difficult to evaluate because there is only meager ecotoxicological information for antimony, however, the levels will not cause harm to plants (Kabata-Pendias and Pendias 1992). The most sensitive route of exposure for animals appears to be dust inhalation. The site appears to be well-vegetated, so dust exposure is probably minimized.

Some of the detected contaminants appear to be unrelated to the site. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs, including fluorene, phenanthrene, anthracene, fluoranthene, and benzo(a)anthracene) exceed the lowest level of concern in 1 river sediment sample (ST01 at the northwest corner of the site), but are not elevated in any of the other sediment or soil samples, with the exception of the background river sediment sample (ST03) northeast of the site. The presence of PAHs in a background sample, and the absence of elevated PAHs in 2 other river sediment samples and all of the on-land samples, indicate that the PAH contamination at ST01 is likely to have originated from off-site activities.

Two other organic substances, phenol and BEHP, exceed the lower benchmarks at one sample each (ST05 and ST04, respectively). BEHP is a common laboratory contaminant, is also detected in the background sample, and is only elevated in a single site sample, so it is not considered further in this assessment. Although phenol is elevated at ST05, it is not elevated in any other sample, and, due to its limited occurrance, is unlikely to present a significant risk to wildlife.


Table 4. Comparison of Soil Contaminant Data with Nonregulatory Soil Quality Criteria, Cosden Oil and Chemical Co., Calumet City, IL.

Substance SQG * (mg/kg) Maximum Detection ** (mg/kg) Hazard Quotient ***
B C B C
Chloromethane n.a. n.a. 0.12 -- --
Acetone n.a. n.a. 1.2 -- --
Styrene 5 50 0.82 0.2 --
PCB Aroclor-1260 1 10 0.6 0.6 --
Cadmium (Cd) 5 20 66.4 10 3
Calcium (Ca) 32,000 (4) 148,000 5 (5)
Chromium (Cr) 250 800 455 2 0.6
Copper (Cu) 100 500 2440 20 5
Lead (Pb) 150 600 1240 8 2
Magnesium (Mg) 26,000 (4) 96,000 4 (5)
Manganese (Mn) 3790 (4) 4130 1 (5)
Nickel (Ni) 100 500 135 1 0.3
Zinc (Zn) 500 1500 212,000 400 100

* The Soil Quality Criteria (SQC) are based on the Netherland and Quebec soil guidelines (Beyer 1990), except where noted otherwise. Criteria B refer to moderate soil contamination that requires additional study. Criteria C refer to severe soil contamination.
** ESI 1995.
*** Hazard Quotient (HQ) = maximum sample concentration ÷ SQC, which is rounded to one significant digit.
(4) Approximate 95th percentile for eastern United States soil, calculated as geometric mean x geometric deviation squared (Shacklette and Boerngen 1984). A literature-based background value is used because a risk-based criterion is unavailable.
(5) This value is the ratio by which the maximum sample concentration exceeds the approximate 95th percentile concentration for eastern United States soil. It does not indicate whether the exceedance is toxicologically significant.

 

Table 5. Comparison of Soil Contaminant Data with Nonregulatory Soil Quality Criteria (SQC), Cosden Oil and Chemical Co., Calumet City, IL.

Substance SQC * Maximum Detection ** Hazard Quotient ***
LEL SEL LEL SEL
Phenol 0.005 (4) -- 1 200 --
Fluorene 0.19 1.6 (5) 0.95 5 0.6
Phenanthrene 0.56 9.5 (5) 4.5 8 0.5
Anthracene 0.22 3.7 (5) 0.86 4 0.2
Fluoranthene 0.75 10.2 (5) 2.7 4 0.3
benzo(a)anthracene 0.2 14.8 (e) 0.96 3 0.1
BEHP (6) 2.0 (4) -- 6.7 3 --
4,4'-DDD 0.008 0.06 (5) 0.21 30 4
4,4'-DDT 0.007 0.12 (5) 0.31 40 3
Antimony (Sb) 2.9 (7) 36.5 10 (8)
Cadmium (Cd) 0.6 10 1.2 2 0.1
Chromium (Cr) 26 110 134 5 1
Iron (Fe) 20,000 40,000 74,800 4 2
Nickel (Ni) 16 75 28.2 2 0.4

* The Sediment Quality Criteria (SQC) are based on the Ontario Provincial Sediment Quality Guidelines (Persaud, et al. 1994), except where noted otherwise. Lowest Effect Level (LEL) refers to marginally polluted sediments in which ecotoxic effects become apparent, but the majority of sediment-dwelling organisms are not affected. Severe Effect Level (SEL) refers to heavily polluted sediments likely to affect the health of sediment-dwelling organisms.
** ESI 1995.
*** Hazard Quotient (HQ) = sample concentration ÷ SQC, which is rounded to one significant digit.
(4) SQC based on chronic toxicity to benthic aquatic life assuming 1% total organic carbon (TOC) (NYDEC 1993).
(5) Assuming 1% TOC.
(6) bis[2-ethylhexyl]phthalate
(7) Approximate 95th percentile for eastern United States soil, calculated as geometric mean x geometric deviation squared (Shacklette and Boerngen 1984). A literature-based background value is used because a risk-based criterion is unavailable.
(8) This value is the ratio by which the maximum sample concentration exceeds the approximate 95th percentile concentration for eastern United States soil. It does not indicate whether the exceedance is toxicologically significant.


Uncertainty

Risks are intentionally overestimated by the conservative assumptions discussed in this section and in Ecological Risk Assessment Step 2 Estimating Exposure, and by the use of generic benchmark values.


Scientific-Management Decision Point (SMDP)

There is widespread but low-level contamination of soils and sediments with chromium, cadmium, and nickel. Although the concentrations of these elements exceed screening values, the exceedances, with one exception, are relatively minor and are unlikely to present significant risks to wildlife at the site. The exception is the soil within the berms surrounding the monomer tanks (sample SS01), which is heavily contaminated with several inorganics. Cadmium, copper, lead, and zinc all exceed the severe contamination levels at SS01, but nowhere else on the site. The highest nickel concentration also occurs at SS01. The soil within the tank berms may therefore represent a localized risk to ecological receptors.

The moderately elevated PAHs along the river appear to be unrelated to the site.

There are single samples that show elevated levels of DDD/DDT (ST11) and phenol (ST05). They probably do not present significant risks to ecological receptors because of their limited occurrence. DDT would be a concern if it was moving off site in significant quantities, however, the ditch in which it was detected continues only a short distance to the west where it apparently ends. DDD/DDT were not elevated in either of the ditch samples taken further east, so they appear to be localized and reasonably immobile.

Antimony can not be definitely assessed because of a lack of toxicological benchmark values. The exposure route of concern is dust inhalation. The level of vegetative cover may be the key variable in this regard.


Links to more information on this site


Contacts for this site



Local Navigation


Jump to main content.