PUBLIC HEALTH ASSESSMENT
AQUA-TECH ENVIRONMENTAL, INCORPORATED
(GROCE LABORATORIES)
GREER, SPARTANBURG COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA
The Aqua-Tech Environmental, Inc. (Aqua-Tech) site was used as a hazardous waste
treatment, storage, and disposal facility beginning in 1976. The site ceased operations in
September 1991 and Aqua-Tech filed for bankruptcy in October 1991. A portion of the
property was previously used as a municipal landfill from 1963 until 1968. Prior to that time,
part of the property was used for general dumping by local residents. The site was added to
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) 
National Priorities List (NPL) in December 1994.
ATSDR classifies sites as to their public health hazard category. Under ATSDR's classification system, the Aqua-Tech site currently represents no apparent health hazard. This means that we currently have no information which indicates that area residents or others near the site are being exposed to any site-related chemicals above levels of concern. While in operation, however, the Aqua-Tech site represented a public health hazard. There is anecdotal information which indicates that on-site workers and a firefighter were exposed to site-related chemicals in the past.
On-site groundwater is contaminated with very high levels of volatile organic compounds. However, we have no information that anyone, either children or adults, is drinking water contaminated with chemicals from the site. Private wells closest to the site have been sampled several times and have not been impacted by contamination at the site. Exposures could occur in the future if the site is developed for industrial use and an on-site well is installed prior to groundwater remediation. Future exposures could also occur if groundwater contamination migrates off site and affects nearby private wells.
Trespassers and unprotected remediation or construction workers on the site could be exposed to chemicals present in soil at the site, but adverse health effects are not likely as long as people are not on the site every day. Since the site is fenced, exposure of the public to site-related chemicals in soil is unlikely to occur at levels that could cause adverse health effects.
On-site surface water and sediment samples contained a few chemicals above screening levels. However, exposures to the public are unlikely since the site is fenced. It does not appear that the site has adversely affected Maple Creek.
Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) were detected in several air samples at levels above ambient air concentrations in the past (U.S. EPA, 1998). These samples were collected shortly after the site ceased operations. Since a source removal has since been completed, current VOC levels in air should be much lower than those detected in the past. Therefore, exposure to site-related chemicals in air is unlikely to occur at levels of concern.
The following recommendations have been made: conduct a private well survey to determine if any residents living near the site use private wells; sample downgradient private wells that are identified near the site during the survey; conduct a biological survey of Maple Creek to determine if water quality has been affected by former operations at the site; and ensure that access to the site is restricted.
The South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC), under a cooperative agreement with the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), evaluated the public health significance of the Aqua-Tech Environmental, Inc. (Aqua-Tech) site. SCDHEC's Division of Health Hazard Evaluation (HHE) determined whether exposure to contaminants is likely to cause adverse health effects and recommended actions to reduce or prevent possible health effects. ATSDR is authorized by the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 to conduct public health assessments at hazardous waste sites.
A. Site Description and History
Aqua-Tech is off of Robinson Road (State Highway 644) near its intersection with State Highway 290. The 61.56 acre property is approximately 1 mile west of Duncan and 2 miles east of Greer in Spartanburg County, South Carolina (Figures 1 and 2, Appendix A). Aqua-Tech is bordered by a Norfolk/Southern Railway line to the north, State Highway 644 (Robinson Road) to the east, and undeveloped property to the south and west.
Local residents used a portion of the property for general dumping as early as the 1940's. The City of Greer owned 35 acres of the 61.56-acre property and used 20 acres as a municipal landfill from 1963 until 1968. The landfill was subsequently closed and capped with clay in the early 1970's. In December 1974 William Groce purchased the 35 acres from the City of Greer. He began accepting hazardous wastes as Groce Laboratories, Incorporated in 1976. Between 1982 and 1986, he purchased the remainder of the 61.56-acre property. Site operations consisted of state-permitted hazardous waste treatment, recycling, storage, and disposal activities. In April 1987 Aqua-Tech purchased the facility and continued hazardous waste operations at the site under the name of Aqua-Tech/Groce Laboratories. In 1990 Aqua-Tech changed the name of the facility to Aqua-Tech Environmental, Inc. The site also received bio-medical wastes and low-level radioactive wastes without obtaining the necessary permits. Aqua-Tech's clients included manufacturing industries, federal agencies, high schools, universities, and hospitals. According to information obtained from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), several parcels of the 61.56-acre property have been sold in county tax auctions since December 1996.
From 1981 through 1991, a history of mismanagement, violations, and non-compliance with state and federal regulations occurred. SCDHEC and EPA frequently cited the facility for improper management of hazardous waste containers, leaking and bulging drums, storage violations, spills, unpermitted detonations, and other management deficiencies. Leaking and open drums, deteriorated compressed-gas cylinders, spills, and discolored soils were observed at the site on several occasions. In an attempt to correct these problems, several administrative consent orders were issued.
According to records from the Spartanburg County Emergency Preparedness Department, a 55-gallon drum fire was reported on March 4, 1990. The drum contained elemental phosphorous. One firefighter was reportedly overcome by the dense smoke and 90 people were evacuated from the area. On April 19, 1990, an on-site explosion occurred when workers attempted to repack two drums containing ignitable mixtures. Two workers were seriously injured. On July 10, 1990, a controlled explosion was used to destroy two additional drums containing ignitable mixtures. At that time, thirty-two nearby residents were evacuated. SCDHEC later informed Aqua-Tech that it must cease detonation activities.
During an August 1991 inspection, Aqua-Tech personnel reported that an employee had recently been overcome by fumes and seriously injured while unpacking lab packs. They indicated that the employee required medical treatment and was unable to return to work for several months. Following this inspection, SCDHEC issued an emergency and administrative order that concluded that the site was an uncontrolled hazardous waste site that constituted a public health and environmental threat. The site was ordered to cease operations. In September 1991, operations ceased at the Aqua-Tech facility. Aqua-Tech filed for bankruptcy on October 11, 1991.
On August 28, 1991, SCDHEC initiated activities to investigate and stabilize the site in order to minimize the threat to human health and the environment. SCDHEC took control of the site on September 4, 1991, and on September 12, 1991, requested assistance from EPA to address contamination at the site. When the facility was closed, EPA and SCDHEC estimated that there were 6,300 drums, 1,300 lab packs, and 500 gas cylinders on-site. At that time, it was believed that drums may be buried at the site. A subsequent magnetic survey and trenching of the site provided no evidence of drums buried at the site (U.S. EPA, 1999). In November 1991, EPA concluded that the site posed an imminent and substantial threat to public health, welfare, and to the environment. In January 1992, stabilization actions were completed. As part of these activities, a fence was installed around the site and 486 drums of phosphorous trichloride were removed from the site with SCDHEC's approval.
On April 24, 1992, EPA issued a Unilateral Administrative Order to 108 potentially responsible parties (PRPs), requiring that they conduct necessary removal actions to "abate an imminent and substantial endangerment to the public health, welfare, or the environment that may be presented by the actual or threatened release of hazardous substances at or from the Site" (RMT, November 1993).
On May 4, 1992, the PRPs assumed responsibility for the site and hired contractors to remove 1,273 compressed-gas cylinders; approximately 1,300 lab packs; approximately 5,700 drums; and approximately 100 tanks and vessels from the site. In 1993 the Aqua-Tech PRP Group contracted RMT, Inc. to conduct a Removal Evaluation at the site. On August 23, 1994, the EPA proposed Aqua-Tech for inclusion on the National Priorities List (NPL); the site was subsequently added to the NPL on December 16, 1994.
From 1981 through 1993, various environmental investigations were conducted at the site. On-site soil and concrete samples were collected during RMT's 1993 Removal Evaluation. On-site groundwater sampling was conducted in 1985, 1988, and 1990. Off-site residential private wells were sampled by SCDHEC in 1990, 1991, and 1992; by EPA in 1992; and again as part of RMT's 1993 Workplan for Removal Evaluation. On-site and off-site surface water and sediment sampling occurred as part of the 1981 field investigation, the 1990 groundwater investigation, and the 1993 removal evaluation workplan. On-site air samples were collected in 1990. The PRPs are currently conducting a Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study to fully determine the extent of contamination at the site.
On April 24, 1995, Enayet Ullah and Eric Melaro from SCDHEC-HHE visited the site and the surrounding community with the SCDHEC Project Manager. The entire 35-acre site is surrounded by an 8-foot-high, chain-link fence topped with 3 strands of barbed wire. The main gate, along Robinson Road, was locked and "no trespassing" and EPA identifier signs were posted at the gate.
Ground cover throughout the site consists mainly of overgrown vegetation with little exposed soil. Gravel was found on many of the internal roads and former storage areas. Several concrete pads (one of which is covered), buildings, and pieces of heavy equipment; a distillation tower; a large storage tank; and 2 bunkers exist on-site. A fiber-mat barrier, approximately 2 feet in height, was found west of the on-site drainage ditch.
The areas surrounding the site consist of sparsely populated residential, light commercial, agricultural, and light industrial properties. We noted signs of children (e.g.: playsets, toys, bikes, basketball hoops) and pets at several homes in the area. A pasture with several cows is north of the site across State Highway 290. An auto salvage yard and railway shipping company are immediately north of the site. The areas south and west of the site are generally undeveloped wooded areas.
Eric Melaro again visited the site on April 11, 1996 with EPA and SCDHEC-Bureau of Land and Waste Management (BLWM) staff. Conditions at the site were much like those observed during the previous visit. However, exposed landfill contents were noted in the drainage ditch. We also noted a large opening between the bottom of the fence and the drainage ditch on the south side of the site. No evidence of trespassing was observed.
Two additional site visits were made on April 20, 1998 and November 2, 1998 with EPA and/or SCDHEC-BLWM staff. Conditions at the site have not changed significantly from the earlier visits.
C. Demographics, Land Use, and Natural Resource Use
The site is in Spartanburg County which had an estimated population of 247,458 in 1998 (U.S. Census Bureau, 1999). There are about 200 people living within one-half mile of the site. About 950 people live within one mile of the site. The population around the site is approximately eighty percent white. Roughly twelve percent of the population around the site lives below the poverty level. A larger percentage of non-white residents than white residents live below the poverty level.
Land use around the site consists of sparsely populated residential, light commercial, agricultural, and industrial properties. Generally undeveloped wooded areas exist to the south and west of the site. North of the site across State Highway 290, we noted a small pasture with several cows. Private homes are visible from the site. Local zoning restrictions prohibit future development of the site for residential or certain institutional (e.g.: schools, hospitals, and nursing homes) purposes. The site, however, could be developed for commercial or industrial purposes (Lonon, 1997).
Surface water runoff at the site flows to the south-southeast and enters a drainage ditch that crosses the site from north to south. Some of the surface water is intercepted by the on-site sedimentation basin. The ditch drains into Maple Creek, a perennial stream that flows about 1 mile east and then runs into the South Tyger River (Figure 3, Appendix A).
Municipal water systems located within a 4-mile radius of the site provide most of the potable water supply for residences surrounding the site. Private wells used within a 4-mile radius of the site were estimated to serve approximately 275 people. The 1990 census data identified 10 private drinking water wells within a 1-mile radius of the site; however, current data to determine well use are needed.
According to the South Carolina Wildlife and Marine Resources Department, recreational fishing was known to occur in Maple Creek and the South Tyger River in the past (B&V, 1991). No data are available about current fishing patterns in these water bodies.
No health outcome data are readily available for review for the area around the Aqua-Tech site.
HHE staff contacted the SCDHEC Bureau of Land and Waste Management, Appalachia I and II Environmental Quality Control Districts, and Appalachia I and II Health Districts for any community health concerns which they were aware of. None of these offices have reports of site-specific health concerns.
During a September 1991 SCDHEC-sponsored public meeting, the community was concerned that site contaminants may have affected private drinking water wells in the area (International Technology, 1992). In 1992 the EPA prepared a Community Relations Plan (CRP) as part of the removal activities at the site. At that time, residents were concerned about what may be buried or found at the site, what was released from the site, the former site operations, and the removal activities. Some residents also asked whether city water lines could be extended to those residences using private drinking water wells (EPA, 1992).
An earlier version of this Public Health Assessment (PHA) was available for public comment in early 1996. SCDHEC-HHE did not receive any comments during the public comment period. In June 1996 EPA conducted community interviews prior to beginning remedial work at the site. A summary of the interviews has not yet been finalized. However, EPA has informed us that the many of the community members thought that the site had already been remediated and had no health concerns. Project staff attended an EPA-sponsored public meeting in December 1996. No health concerns were expressed at that time.
In August 2000, the draft public health assessment was released for public comment. There were no comments received during the 30-day comment period.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONTAMINATION AND OTHER HAZARDS
Data presented in this section are from the various preliminary investigations conducted from 1981 to 1993 and represent the latest available data for the Aqua-Tech site.
SCDHEC-HHE selects and discusses site contaminants based upon the following factors:
The listing of a contaminant in the data tables in Appendix B does not mean that it will cause adverse health effects from exposures. Instead, the list indicates which contaminants are evaluated further in this public health assessment.
Screening values for public health assessments are contaminant concentrations in specific media that are used to select contaminants for further evaluation. These values include U.S. EPA's maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) and action levels, South Carolina Water Quality Criteria, and those calculated by SCDHEC. MCLs are the maximum permissible levels of contaminants in public water. An action level is the level of a chemical which, if exceeded, triggers treatment or other action. The South Carolina Water Quality Criteria are the maximum permissible level of contaminants in surface water developed by the state of South Carolina for the protection of human health.
Soil
In 1993, RMT, Inc. conducted a surface soil removal evaluation to determine the nature and extent of soil contamination requiring removal from waste storage areas, processing areas, and administrative areas (Figure 3, Appendix A). As part of this evaluation, RMT collected 69 surface soil samples from on-site locations. Surface soil samples were collected from 0" to 6" below the land surface.
The highest contaminant levels were detected primarily in soil from the former operational areas in the northwest corner of the site and along the northern site boundary. VOCs, semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), pesticides, and metals were detected in these areas. Arsenic, lead, and one PCB were the only chemicals found above screening levels (Table 1B, Appendix B).
Subconcrete Soil
As part of RMT's 1993 evaluation, 15 subconcrete soil samples were collected from on-site locations in August 1993. At each sampling location, a hole was bored through the concrete pad. Subconcrete soil samples were then collected from the borings at a depth of 0" to 6" below the concrete pads. All boring locations were subsequently filled with concrete.
The highest contaminant levels in subconcrete soils were detected primarily in the former distillation, incineration, and tank storage areas of the site. Chemicals detected in these areas include VOCs, SVOCs, PCBs, pesticides, and metals. Only thallium and one PCB were detected above screening levels (Table 2B, Appendix B).
Concrete Pad
As part of RMT's 1993 evaluation, 15 concrete pad samples were collected from on-site locations in August 1993. Concrete pad samples were collected by coring 3" to 4" into the concrete pads; cores were ground to dust and analyzed. All coring locations were subsequently filled with concrete.
Contaminants were primarily identified in the concrete pad samples taken from the former distillation and shed areas located in the northwest corner of the site. VOCs, SVOCs, pesticides, and metals were detected in these areas. Arsenic and lead were the only chemicals consistently detected at elevated levels (Table 3B, Appendix B).
Groundwater
The data included in this section represent data collected during several on-site groundwater investigations at the site from 1981 to 1990. As part of these investigations, thirty-one monitoring wells were installed and sampled at nineteen locations at the Aqua-Tech site (Figure 3, Appendix A). Three existing on-site production wells were also sampled during these investigations. Two of the production wells (PW-1, PW-2) were previously used for process water. PW-3 was used as the drinking water source at the facility (A.T. Kearney, Inc. 1988).
Contaminants have been consistently detected in the monitoring wells located in the areas of former site operations. Some of the highest contaminant levels have been found in the area of the former landfill. In some cases, higher contaminant levels were found in the deeper wells. Contaminants detected in on-site groundwater include VOCs, SVOCs, and metals. Several VOCs and SVOCs were detected above their screening values (Table 4B, Appendix B). Data indicate that PW-3 has not been affected by site-related contaminants.
Surface Water and Sediments
Surface water and sediment samples were collected from the on-site drainage ditch which runs from north to south across the site (Figure 3, Appendix A). As part of the 1990 investigation, one surface water sample was collected from the drainage ditch. During the completion of RMT's 1993 Removal Evaluation Workplan, quarterly surface water and sediment samples were collected from the on-site drainage ditch. RMT also collected quarterly sediment samples from the on-site sedimentation basin.
VOCs, SVOCs, and metals were detected in surface water and sediment samples collected from the on-site drainage ditch in 1993. Trichloroethene and vinyl chloride were found in surface water at levels above South Carolina's Water Quality Criteria (Table 5B, Appendix B). Arsenic and/or lead were found in sediment samples collected from the drainage ditch and sedimentation basin (Table 6B, Appendix B).
Air
International Technology Corporation collected six air samples in October 1991. However, exact sample locations can not be determined. Six VOCs were detected in one or more of these samples at levels above ambient air concentrations (U.S. EPA, 1998). 1,1,2-trichloroethane was detected in four samples above its screening value.
As part of the investigations conducted at this site from 1981 to 1993, off-site sampling was limited to nearby private wells and Maple Creek.
Private Wells
From 1990 to 1993, thirty-two samples were collected from ten private wells near the site. Most of the wells were located east or northeast of the site. Some wells were sampled multiple times during this period. Metals were detected inconsistently and at low levels in a few of the wells. One VOC was detected in 1991 in one well at a level well below its screening value. The VOC was not found in follow-up samples from the same well.
Maple Creek
Surface water and sediment samples were collected upstream and downstream of the site in Maple Creek as part of the 1990 Phase IV Groundwater Assessment and the 1993 Removal Evaluation Workplan (Figure 3, Appendix A). While not detected in 1990, surface water and sediment samples collected in 1993 contained a few VOCs, SVOCs, and metals at low concentrations. Upstream and downstream levels were very similar. Many of these detections were estimated concentrations and were not found consistently.
C. Quality Assurance and Quality Control (QA/QC)
The data in this section are from the various preliminary investigations conducted from 1981 to 1993 and represent the latest available data for the Aqua-Tech site. In preparing this public health assessment, SCDHEC assumes that adequate quality assurance and quality control measures were followed with regard to chain-of-custody, laboratory procedures, and data reporting. The validity of the analysis and conclusions drawn for this public health assessment are determined by the completeness and reliability of the referenced information.
During our site visits, SCDHEC staff noted several physical hazards at the Aqua-Tech site. The rusted and deteriorated remains of the former processing and distillation equipment, several trucks, a tanker, and other heavy equipment remain at the site. Three structures which were used as office and laboratory space have broken windows and are in varying states of decay. The formerly active 35-acre site is surrounded by an eight-foot-high, chain-link fence topped by three strands of barbed wire which should limit access to the site. However, the equipment and structures could pose a physical hazard to site workers and trespassers.
This section contains discussions on how chemicals move in the environment and how people can be exposed to those chemicals. Environmental monitoring data has shown that on-site soil, groundwater, and surface water are contaminated with site-related chemicals above screening values.
There are two types of exposure pathways, completed and potential. For a completed exposure pathway, we are sure that someone has been exposed to site-related chemicals above levels of health concern. For example, there must be: (1) a source of the chemical (the site), (2) contaminated media (soil), (3) a way for people to be exposed (people trespassing on site), and (4) a way for the chemical to get into/on a person (eating dirt). We do not believe that people are currently being exposed to any contaminated media at the site. Therefore, we have concluded that there are no completed exposure pathways at this time. There is anecdotal information which indicates that on-site workers and a firefighter were exposed to site-related chemicals while the site was in operation. However, data are not available to evaluate the concentration of chemicals or the possible health effects associated with these exposures. An exposure pathway may be eliminated if one of the elements listed above is missing and will never be present.
The second type of exposure pathway is a potential exposure pathway. This means that we are uncertain about one of the four elements mentioned above. For example, if we know that groundwater at the site is contaminated and there is a water supply well nearby that could at some point in the future become contaminated, it is called a potential exposure pathway. The potential exposure pathways for the Aqua-Tech site are shown in Table 1. We know that for the Aqua-Tech site, groundwater and soil are contaminated with site-related chemicals. However, we believe that no one is being exposed at this time. We do not know if anyone has been on the site frequently enough to have been exposed to site-related chemicals in the soil. We believe that it is possible that people who used to work at the site could have been exposed to chemicals in soil.
Table 1. Potential Exposure Pathways
| Exposure Pathways Elements | Time | ||||
| Source | Environmental Medium | Point of Exposure | Route of Exposure | Exposed Population | |
| Aqua-Tech | Groundwater | Off-site | Ingestion, Inhalation, Dermal Contact |
Area Residents | Future |
| Aqua-Tech | Soil | On-site | Ingestion, Inhalation, Dermal Contact |
Trespassers, Workers | Past Present Future |
Soil Pathway
Soil samples collected at the site contained a few chemicals above screening levels. Although both shallow (0 - 6 inches deep) and subconcrete soil (0 - 6 inches below concrete pads) are contaminated, contact with deep soils is unlikely to occur unless these areas are not remediated and are dug up during future activities at the site. Since the site is fenced with limited access, exposure to site-related chemicals in shallow soil is also unlikely, except for the occasional trespasser or unprotected remediation or construction worker.
Prior to the site being fenced in late 1991 or early 1992, exposure to contaminants in soil may have occurred to on-site workers or to anyone who trespassed on the site. However, we have no information to evaluate the length or frequency of exposures or whether protective clothing was used by workers in the past.
Concrete Pad Pathway
Concrete pad samples collected at the site contained arsenic and lead at elevated levels. However, human exposure to the chemicals found in the concrete pads is considered extremely unlikely unless the pads are disturbed during future activities at the site. Therefore, this pathway has been eliminated at this time.
Groundwater Pathway
Groundwater occurs under unconfined conditions at the site within both the shallow and deep aquifers (RMT, 1985). Based on available hydrogeological data, groundwater generally flows to the south-southeast beneath the site toward Maple Creek (RMT, October 1988) (Figure 3, Appendix A). Variations in groundwater flow may occur locally and seasonally based on changes in site topography and the groundwater recharge and discharge at the site. The water table is approximately 20 feet below land surface throughout most of the site and becomes shallower near Maple Creek.
VOCs and SVOCs were found above screening levels in many of the groundwater samples collected at the site. Contaminants present in soil may have leached into groundwater as a result of physical, chemical, and biological processes. Shallow groundwater at the site may discharge to the drainage ditch or Maple Creek. No off-site monitoring wells were installed as part of the preliminary investigations at the site. However, thirty-two off-site private well samples were collected from 1990 to 1993. Based on that information, it did not appear that site activities had affected these private wells. Some local residents may still use private wells.
Currently, we do not believe that anyone is being exposed to contaminated groundwater. However, exposures could occur in the future if the site is developed for industrial use and a well is installed prior to groundwater remediation. Future exposures could also occur if groundwater contamination migrates off site and affects nearby private wells. However, information is not available to conclusively determine how many local residents still use private wells.
Surface Water/Sediment Pathway
Surface water runoff at the site flows to the south-southeast and enters a drainage ditch that crosses the site from north to south. The ditch drains into Maple Creek, a perennial stream that flows about one mile east and then runs into the South Tyger River. Shallow groundwater at the site may discharge to the drainage ditch or Maple Creek.
Surface water and sediment samples collected from the on-site drainage ditch and sedimentation basin contained a few chemicals above screening levels and below levels of concern. However, the fence around the site should prevent exposures to contaminated on-site surface water and sediments.
While it does not appear that the site has adversely affected Maple Creek, a general water quality survey could provide additional information about the health of the creek. This information could be used to determine if further sampling of the creek is warranted in order to protect public health. At this point in time, exposure to Maple Creek near the site should not result in any adverse health effects. Therefore, this pathway has been eliminated. Aqua-Tech, Inc. ceased operations in 1991 and it is possible that higher contaminant levels were in the creek when the site was in operation. However, we have no information to determine whether contaminant levels in the creek were a problem at that time.
Air Pathway
VOCs were detected in several air samples at levels above ambient air concentrations in the past (U.S. EPA, 1998). These samples were collected shortly after the site ceased operations and prior to stabilization work being completed. Since the source removal has been completed and there are no longer any drums, cylinders, or lab packs on site, VOC levels in air should be much lower than those detected in the past. Therefore, exposure to site-related chemicals in air is unlikely to occur at levels of concern.
Prior to the source removal, exposure to contaminants in air may have occurred to on-site workers or to anyone who trespassed on the site. However, we have no information to evaluate the length or frequency of exposures or whether protective clothing was used by workers in the past.
There is often little information about the health effects caused by low level environmental exposures. Most human exposure studies use information from industrial exposures, where the doses are much higher. Industrial exposure studies normally do not include precise information about the dose, the purity of the chemicals, their interactions with other substances, and the duration of the exposure. For some chemicals, there is no information available on the effects in people; therefore, we sometimes use data collected from studies using laboratory animals. Animals do not necessarily show the same responses that humans do when exposed to toxic substances. However in animal experiments using carefully controlled doses and time periods, researchers observe health effects that they believe may also occur in people.
Information is not available to be able to say with certainty that if a person were exposed to chemicals in soil or groundwater at the site they would become sick. Most information about these chemicals is usually obtained from laboratory studies. The animals in these studies are typically exposed at much higher levels than would be expected to occur at the Aqua-Tech Site. It is very difficult to know what levels of chemicals at the site can cause specific health effects. The kinds and severity of human health problems that can occur with exposure depend upon several factors: the amount of chemical exposure, duration of exposure, and route of exposure; body weight, age, sex, ethnic background, lifestyle factors, and genetic factors; general health of the person; individual reactions to chemicals; and interactions with other chemicals or drugs.
In order to compare the amounts of a substance that may be taken into the body to known standards, we use comparison doses. These doses are based on the amount of a substance that is consumed per day (milligrams of chemical/kilogram of body weight/day, mg/kg/day). Comparison doses used in this section include ATSDR's Minimum Risk Level (MRL), which represents an estimate of daily human exposure to a dose of a chemical that is likely to be without adverse effects (for noncancerous effects) over a specified duration of exposure, and the U.S. EPA Reference Dose (RfD), which is an estimate of the daily exposure of people to a potential hazard that is likely to be safe during a lifetime of exposure (that does not include cancer). These doses represent levels at which harmful effects are unlikely to occur. They are calculated using safety factors for the most sensitive human populations, and if based upon animal measurements, additional safety factors are used.
Consideration of Children's Health Issues
In preparing this public health assessment, we considered the fact that children probably live in the area around the Aqua-Tech Site. However, our evaluation of the site does not indicate that chemical exposures are occurring to anyone living near the site. As a result, there are no special health concerns related to children at this site. If additional information becomes available which indicates that human exposures are occurring, we will reevaluate the health risk to children.
Toxicological Evaluation
Groundwater at the site is contaminated with very high levels of VOCs (Table 4B, Appendix B). We have no information at this time that anyone, either children or adults, is drinking water contaminated with chemicals from the site. Private wells closest to the site have been sampled several times and have not been impacted by contamination at the site. These wells would have to become contaminated for a person to be exposed to groundwater from the site. Although there are quite a few chemicals listed in Table 4B above screening levels, only those chemicals above levels of concern are discussed in this section. Those chemicals above levels of concern at the site include benzene, carbon tetrachloride, 1,1-dichloroethane, 1,1,1-trichloroethane, 1,2-dichloroethane, 1,1,2-trichloroethane, trichloroethene, tetrachloroethene, trans-1,2-dichloroethene, phenols, and vinyl chloride. Exposure to the other chemicals would not result in doses above their respective U.S. EPA RfDs or ATSDR MRLs. Adverse health effects would not be expected to occur from exposure to these other chemicals because the doses are lower than the levels of concern.
A level of concern is an estimated dose, below which, adverse health effects are not expected to occur. Levels of concern are normally U.S. EPA RfDs or ATSDR MRLs. This does not mean that if the estimated dose of the chemical is above these levels of concern a person will become sick, but that there is an increased risk that exposure could cause adverse health effects.
Exposure to 1,1-dichloroethene, 1,2-dichloroethene, trichloroethene, tetrachloroethene, 1,2-dichloroethane, and vinyl chloride may be associated with adverse affects on the liver and kidneys. Most of this information is based on results from laboratory studies and we do not know if the same problems will occur in people. There is also limited evidence of a link between heart, immunological, and developmental problems in people exposed to trichloroethene and tetrachloroethene. Exposure to other chemicals found on the Aqua-Tech site including 1,1,1-trichloroethane, 1,1,2-trichloroethane, 1,1-dichloroethene, 1,2-dichloroethane and phenols, have been associated with gastrointestinal upset either at high doses or in laboratory animals. 1,2-dichloroethane, 1,1,1-trichloroethane, 1,1,2-trichloroethane, and trans-1,2-dichloroethene have been associated with central nervous system effects in laboratory animals. Inhalation of 1,1,2-trichloroethane has been shown to affect the liver, kidney, and central nervous system in laboratory animals (ATSDR, 1989).
Trichloroethene (TCE), and to some extent tetrachloroethene, in drinking water in combination with other VOCs has been associated with congenital mouth and nervous system defects and low birth weight (Bove et al., 1992), childhood leukemia, deaths around the time of birth, childhood disorders, and congenital abnormalities (Lagakos, 1986). TCE has also been associated with respiratory problems, skin problems, cardiovascular effects, leukemia and recurrent infections (Byers et al., 1988), and heart disease (Goldberg, 1990). These studies, however, did not provide sufficient evidence that just TCE causes these harmful health effects because the people were exposed to more than one chemical at the same time. It is difficult to determine which chemical or combination of chemicals would be associated with the various adverse effects. Moreover, information on other risk factors that could cause the same adverse effects was not included in this study. Exposure to TCE has also been associated with the development of hearing problems in children exposed through drinking water (ATSDR, 1994; Burg et al., 1995).
Although exposure to several of the chemicals (benzene, carbon tetrachloride, vinyl chloride, and 1,1-dichloroethane) found in on-site groundwater can increase the risk of developing cancer, none of the private wells has contained any of these chemicals. For any of these chemicals to cause an increased cancer risk, a person would have to be exposed to the highest level found on site. The exposure would have to be over the person's lifetime and they would have to drink a lot of water (more than two liters) every day. Continued monitoring of the private wells across from the site could ensure that they do not become contaminated at some point in the future.
On-site soil (0-6 inches), contained elevated levels of lead, arsenic, and PCBs. If an on-site worker were exposed to contaminated soil 5 days a week for 30 years, the estimated doses for arsenic and PCBs would be below levels of concern. A trespasser would have to get onto the site every day for 30 years for casual exposure to pose a risk. Most of the site is fenced and exposure to site-related chemicals in soil every day is not likely to occur. Since there is no U.S. EPA reference dose for lead it is difficult to determine what levels of exposure are harmful. Children are at greatest risk of adverse health effects from exposure to lead. Exposure to lead can result in elevated blood lead levels. Elevated blood lead has been associated with a decrease in intelligence (IQ) scores, slow growth, and hearing problems in children and infants. These effects can happen at low exposure levels and persist as the children get older. Adults do not absorb lead via the digestive tract as readily as children. Most absorbed lead is stored in bones. Lead is also distributed to the red blood cells, blood plasma, kidney, liver, and brain. This storage is cumulative and the body's burden increases over time.
B. Health Outcome Data Evaluation
As no health outcome data are readily available for the area around the Aqua-Tech Site, we cannot evaluate health outcome data at this time.
C. Community Health Concerns Evaluation
As part of EPA's 1992 Community Relations Plan and 1996 community interviews and public meeting, area residents have not expressed any specific health concerns related to the Aqua-Tech Site. In the past, residents were concerned about the site conditions, the former site operations, the removal activities at the site, the quality of water obtained from private wells, and what may be buried at the site.
Site operations were terminated in 1991 and stabilization activities were concluded in 1992; through these actions, the immediate threat from this site has been eliminated. Residents were also concerned about the possible impact the site may have on their private drinking water wells. Municipal water is available to local residents; however, some may continue to use private wells. Data collected from 1990 to 1993 indicate that private wells closest to the site had not been impacted. According to information provided by EPA, no evidence of drums buried at the site was found during a magnetic survey and trenching of the site (U.S. EPA, 1999).
The conclusions drawn and recommendations made in this public health assessment are based on data collected at the site through 1993. As more data become available, additional conclusions may be drawn and additional recommendations may be made.
ATSDR classifies sites as to their public health hazard category. Under ATSDR's classification system, the Aqua-Tech site currently represents no apparent health hazard. This means that we have no information which indicates that area residents or others near the site are being exposed to any site-related chemicals above levels of concern. While in operation, however, the Aqua-Tech site represented a public health hazard. There is anecdotal information which indicates that on-site workers and a firefighter were exposed to site-related chemicals in the past. Exposures could also occur in the future if the site is developed for industrial use and an on-site well is installed prior to groundwater remediation. Future exposures could also occur if groundwater contamination migrates off site and affects nearby private wells. Continued monitoring of private wells across from the site could ensure that the wells are not used if they become contaminated at some point in the future. Information on private residential drinking water well use and current sampling data from these wells are not available. This information is needed to fully evaluate potential exposures to site-related contaminants.
Trespassers and unprotected remediation or construction workers on the site could be exposed to chemicals present in soil at the site, but adverse health effects are not likely as long as people are not on the site every day. Lead is the only chemical that poses a health risk to a person if they were exposed. Since the site is fenced, exposure to site-related chemicals in soil is unlikely to occur at levels that could cause adverse health effects.
While it does not appear that the site has adversely affected Maple Creek, a general water quality survey could provide additional information about the health of the Creek. This information could be used to determine if further sampling of the Creek is warranted in order to protect public health. At this point in time, exposure to Maple Creek near the site should not result in any adverse health effects. Therefore, this pathway has been eliminated.
VOCs were detected in several air samples at levels above ambient air concentrations in the past (U.S. EPA, 1998). These samples were collected shortly after the site ceased operations and prior to stabilization work being completed. Since the source removal has been completed, VOC levels in air should be much lower than those detected in the past. Therefore, exposure to site-related chemicals in air is unlikely to occur at levels of concern.
Eric W. Melaro, M.S.
Environmental Health Manager
SCDHEC, Division of Health Hazard Evaluation
Tracy Shelley, M.S.
Program Manager
SCDHEC, Division of Health Hazard Evaluation
Bob Safay
ATSDR Regional Representative
Regional Operations - Region IV
Debra Gable
ATSDR Technical Project Officer
Division of Health Assessment and Consultation, State Program Section
This Aqua-Tech Environmental, Inc. Public Health Assessment was prepared by SCDHEC-HHE under a cooperative agreement with ATSDR. It is in accordance with approved methodology and procedures existing at the time the public health assessment was begun.
Debra Gable
Technical Project Officer, SPS, DHAC
ATSDR
The Division of Health Assessment and Consultation, ATSDR, has reviewed this public health assessment, and concurs with its findings.
Richard Gillig
Chief, SPS, SSAB, DHAC
ATSDR
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Public health assessment guidance manual. 1992.
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry 1994, as seen in ATSDR Toxicological Profile for Trichloroethylene. 1997.
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Draft toxicological profile for arsenic. August 1998.
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Toxicological profile for benzene. September 1997.
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Toxicological profile for carbon tetrachloride. May 1994.
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Toxicological profile for chloroethane. December 1998.
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Toxicological profile for chloroform. September 1997.
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Toxicological profile for chloromethane. December 1998.
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Toxicological profile for 1,1-dichloroethane. December 1990.
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Toxicological profile for 1,2-dichloroethane. May 1994.
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Toxicological profile for 1,1-dichloroethene. May 1994.
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Toxicological profile for 1,2-dichloroethene. August 1996.
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Draft toxicological profile for lead. August 1997.
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Draft toxicological profile for manganese. September 1997.
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Draft toxicological profile for methylene chloride. September 1998.
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Toxicological profile for phenol. December 1998.
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Draft toxicological profile for polychlorinated biphenyls. December 1998.
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Toxicological profile for tetrachloroethylene. September 1997.
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Toxicological profile for thallium. July 1992.
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Toxicological profile for 1,1,1-trichloroethane. August 1995.
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Toxicological profile for 1,1,2-trichloroethane. December 1989.
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Toxicological profile for trichloroethylene. September 1997.
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Toxicological profile for vinyl chloride. September 1997.
A.T. Kearney, Inc. Interim RCRA Facility Assessment Report. May 1988.
B&V Waste Science and Technology Corporation. Site Investigation for Aqua-Tech Environmental, Inc. (Groce Laboratories). May 29, 1992.
B&V Waste Science and Technology Corporation. Telephone memorandum to Randy Geddings from Victor Blix concerning fishing patterns. November 21, 1991.
B&V Waste Science and Technology Corporation. Telephone memorandum to Dianne Stampley from Victor Blix concerning site employees. November 13, 1991.
B&V Waste Science and Technology Corporation. Telephone memorandum to Randy Geddings from Victor Blix concerning area fishing. November 21, 1991.
Blix, Victor. Field Observations. February 1992.
Bove et al. 1992, as seen in ATSDR Toxicological Profile for Trichloroethylene. 1997.
Burg et al. 1995, as seen in ATSDR Toxicological Profile for Trichloroethylene. 1997.
Byers et al. 1988, as seen in ATSDR Toxicological Profile for Trichloroethylene. 1997.
Dynamac Corporation. Technical Review of Existing Data. February 1990.
Ecology and Environment, Inc. Field Investigations of Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites. November 25, 1981.
Goldberg et al. 1990, as seen in ATSDR Toxicological Profile for Trichloroethylene. 1997.
Greenville-Spartanburg Airport Environs Commission. Greenville-Spartanburg Airport Environs Area Zoning Ordinance. March 29, 1996.
International Technology Corporation. Aqua-Tech/SCDHEC Final Report. October 1992.
Lagakos 1986a, as seen in ATSDR Toxicological Profile for Trichloroethylene. 1997.
McGill, Calvin. Letter to Kenneth Lapierre, US EPA. June 7, 1991.
National priorities list for uncontrolled hazardous waste sites. Federal Register. August 23, 1994;59:43314-43320.
RMT. Preliminary Hydrogeologic Investigation at Groce Laboratories, Inc. December 1985.
RMT. Phase II Ground Water Quality Assessment Results. January 1988.
RMT. Phase III Ground Water Quality Assessment Results and Remedial Action Alternative. October 1988.
RMT. Aqua-Tech Environmental Site Removal Action Project QA/QA Plan. June 1992.
RMT. Workplan for Investigating the Nature and Extent of Soil Contamination. August 1993.
RMT. Surface Soil Removal Evaluation. November 1993.
Sirrine Environmental Consultants, Inc. RCRA Permit Application. December 31, 1989.
Sirrine Environmental Consultants, Inc. Phase IV Ground Water Assessment. April 1990.
Smith, Andrew G. Chlorinated hydrocarbon insecticides. In: Hayes, WA Jr. and Laws, ER Jr., eds. Handbook of Pesticide Toxicology. San Diego: Academic Press, Inc., 1991:791-816.
South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control. Memorandum to Keith Collinsworth from Tommy Hyde concerning private well sampling. June 11, 1990.
South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control. Letter to resident from David Price concerning private well sampling. October 3, 1990.
South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control. Letter to Greer Tidwell from R. Lewis Shaw concerning site closure. September 12, 1991.
South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control. Aqua-Tech Environmental, Inc. Private Well Data. December 1991.
South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control. Letters to residents from Judy Canova concerning private well sampling. February 13, 1992.
South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control. Memorandum to Lovyst Luker from Eric Melaro and Enayet Ullah concerning site visit. May 8, 1995.
South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control. Memorandum to Lovyst Luker from Eric Melaro concerning information provided by the EPA. May 8, 1995.
South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control. Memorandum to Lovyst Luker from Eric Melaro concerning soil sampling at the Aqua-Tech site. May 10, 1995.
South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control. Memorandum to Lovyst Luker from Eric Melaro concerning former landfill located at the Aqua-Tech site. May 19, 1995.
South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control. Memorandum to Lovyst Luker from Eric Melaro concerning information presented in the Aqua-Tech Community Relations Plan. June 30, 1995.
South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control. Memorandum to Lovyst Luker from Eric Melaro concerning information presented in the Aqua-Tech Community Relations Plan. June 30, 1995.
South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control. Record of Personal Communication with Yvonne Jones, EPA, concerning magnetometer survey. August 19, 1999.
Spartanburg County Planning and Development Department. Letter to Eric Melaro from Bill Lonon concerning land use. March 14, 1997.
U.S. Census Bureau. County Population Estimates for July 31, 1998 Web Page. March 12, 1999.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Aqua-Tech Environmental, Inc. Private Well Data. February 1992.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Final Community Relations Plan, Aqua-Tech Environmental Site. December 23, 1992.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Fact Sheet, Aqua-Tech Environmental Site. 1992.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Fact Sheet, Aqua-Tech Environmental Site. January 23, 1992.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Integrated Risk Information System. April 1, 1994.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Removal Action Fact Sheet, Aqua-Tech Environmental Site. February 1992.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Unified Air Toxics Website. May 26, 1998.
Figure 1. Greer, South Carolina
TABLE 1B. ON-SITE SOIL (0 - 6 inches in depth)
| Chemicals | Concentration (ppm) | Screening Level (ppm) |
| Aroclor 1254 | 0.069 - 35 | 3.51 |
| Arsenic | 0.66 - 65.6 | 4.71 |
| Lead | 14.3J - 1,290J | 4002 |
Data Source = RMT, Inc., 1993 Surface Soil Removal Evaluation
1 = Comparison value calculated by SCDHEC
2 = EPA Action Level
J = Estimated value
TABLE 2B. ON-SITE SUBCONCRETE SOIL (0 - 6 inches below
concrete pads)
| Chemicals | Concentration (ppm) | Screening Level (ppm) |
| Aroclor 1242 | 0.070 - 19 | 3.51 |
| Thallium | 0.84 - 343 | 501 |
Data Source = RMT, Inc., 1993 Surface Soil Removal Evaluation
1 = Comparison value calculated by SCDHEC
TABLE 3B. ON-SITE CONCRETE PADS (3 - 4 inches in depth)
| Chemicals | Concentration (ppm) | Screening Level (ppm) |
| Arsenic | 1.8 - 29.9 | NA |
| Lead | 1.6 - 6,690 | NA |
Data Source = RMT, Inc., 1993 Surface Soil Removal Evaluation
NA = None available
| Chemicals | Concentration (ppb) | Screening Level (ppb) |
| Benzene | 1.1 - 1,980 | 51 |
| Carbon tetrachloride | 14 - 46 | 51 |
| Chloroethane | 1 - 1070 | NA |
| Chloroform | 1 - 750 | 1001 |
| Chloromethane | 0.58 - 140 | NA |
| 1,1-dichloroethane | 0.56 - 4,000J | NA |
| 1,1-dichloroethene | 1.2 - 440 | 71 |
| 1,1,1-trichloroethane | 1.1 - 3,600 | 2001 |
| 1,2-dichloroethane | 3.2 - 300 | 51 |
| 1,1,2-trichloroethane | 1 - 390 | 51 |
| Lead | 2 - 12 | 153 |
| Methylene chloride | 5.3 - 2,700 | 51 |
| Tetrachloroethene | 2.7 - 920 | 51 |
| Total phenols | 3.3 - 67,000 | 21,0002 |
| Trans-1,2-dichloroethene | 2.2 - 7,000 | 1001 |
| Trichloroethene | 1.2 - 12,300 | 51 |
| Vinyl chloride | 0.6 - 7,600 | 21 |
1 = EPA Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL)
2 = Comparison value calculated by SCDHEC
3 = EPA Action Level
NA = None available
J = Estimated value
TABLE 5B. ON-SITE SURFACE WATER - DRAINAGE DITCH
| Chemicals | Concentration (ppb) | Screening Level (ppb) |
| 1,1-dichloroethane | 4J - 10 | NA |
| Manganese | 5,890 - 6,720 | NA |
| Trichloroethene | 3J - 38 | 51 |
| Vinyl chloride | 2J - 9J | 21 |
Data Source = RMT, Inc., 1993 Workplan
1 = South Carolina Water Quality Criteria
J = Estimated value
NA = None available
| Chemicals | Concentration (ppm) | Screening Level (ppm) | |
| Drainage Ditch | Sediment Basin | ||
| Arsenic | ND | 4.2 - 7.6 | NA |
| Lead | 34.5 - 57.9 | 110 - 229 | NA |
Data Source = RMT, Inc., 1993 Workplan
ND = Not detected
NA = None available
