Skip directly to search Skip directly to A to Z list Skip directly to site content

PETITIONED HEALTH CONSULTATION

FORMER CACHET CLASSIC CLEANERS
(a/k/a CACHET CLEANERS)
DULUTH, GWINNETT COUNTY, GEORGIA


BACKGROUND AND STATEMENT OF ISSUES

At the request of a citizen, the Georgia Department of Human Resources, Division of Public Health (GDPH), through a cooperative agreement with the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), examined the potential for people to be exposed to contaminants at Peachtree Hill Shopping Center. The shopping center is in Duluth, Georgia. The citizen and other people are concerned about possible adverse health effects from breathing chemicals released into the environment when the dry cleaning facility operated and from remediation projects at the dry cleaning facility and at the nearby groundwater treatment site. This document contains information about exposures to levels of chemicals measured at the shopping center and vicinity in February 2000. No data were found to evaluate possible exposures that occurred prior to and during remediation of the tetrachloroethylene (PCE) spill at the dry cleaning establishment.

The former Cachet Classic Cleaners was a commercial dry cleaner that operated from approximately 1987 to 1995 in Unit 3 of what is now the Peachtree Hill Shopping Center. In 1995, soil contaminated with PCE was discovered under the dry cleaning machine. In November 1995, the dry cleaning machine was removed from the site. Cachet subsequently converted to a drop off facility only and moved to another location (Unit 1) within the shopping center.

The property owner for Peachtree Hill Shopping Center began to clean up the PCE in 1996. Soil vacuum extraction (SVE) and air sparging (AS) systems were installed in 1996 underneath the dry cleaning location to remove the PCE from the soil. The cleanup procedure continued until May 1998.

In 1996, groundwater samples collected from monitoring well 11 (MW-11), located on an out parcel of land adjacent to and west of Peachtree Hill Shopping Center, contained PCE at 73 micrograms per liter (µg/L) or parts per billion (ppb). Additional groundwater samples collected in August 1997 showed that elevated concentrations of PCE appeared to be confined to the area immediately surrounding MW-11 (1). The property owner then proceeded with corrective action on the out parcel area by removing contaminated groundwater, stripping the PCE from it, and allowing the cleaned water to return to the aquifer.

In July 1999, the Georgia Environmental Protection Division (GEPD), Air Protection Branch, investigated concerns about potential air exposures to PCE from the out parcel treatment system. GEPD calculated the maximum amount of PCE that might be released from the treatment system and found emissions did not violate the Georgia Air Toxics Guidelines or Air Quality Regulations (1).

In January 2000, a citizen petitioned ATSDR to evaluate concerns about PCE exposure and PCE breakdown products at the shopping center. ATSDR requested GDPH assistance in evaluating site conditions. GDPH has a cooperative agreement with ATSDR and conducts public health assessment activities with ATSDR in Georgia (2).

In February 2000, Ecology and Environment Incorporated (EEI), under a GEPD contract, performed a site assessment of the Peachtree Hill Shopping Center, including the former Cachet Classic Cleaners. The assessment addressed current inhalation exposure to chemicals in the air at the shopping center that included PCE, PCE breakdown products, and other volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Tap water samples were also taken from three locations at the shopping center to determine if any contaminants were entering water supply lines from contaminated soil.


DISCUSSION

GDPH reviewed EEI air, surface water, and tap water data from Peachtree Hill Shopping Center and the vicinity. No ambient or indoor air sampling data were found for the site prior to the EEI investigation; therefore, we cannot evaluate any health impacts past exposure might have had. For this assessment, we evaluated sampling data from air and tap water collected during the EEI site assessment to determine if any contamination remaining after the PCE spill and subsequent remediation posed a public health hazard. However, because PCE and some of its breakdown products are widely used in industry, we cannot identify whether any PCE-related contaminants can be traced directly to the contamination at the dry cleaning facility. Individuals potentially exposed at the site include customers and full time workers. In evaluating the site, we assumed workers in the shopping center were exposed to the highest chemical levels found at the site because they were present for longer durations of time.

Contaminant levels were compared to comparison values for each environmental media measured: air and water. Comparison values are safe levels of contaminants in the environment. If contaminant levels exceed comparison values, we further evaluate how people are exposed and to what levels. Table 1 (Appendix A) lists the chemicals that exceeded comparison values in air. Table 2 shows the contaminants found in tap water at the shopping center and shows how the estimated exposure dose compared to the Minimal Risk Level (MRL).

A MRL is an estimate of the daily human exposure to a chemical that is believed to be safe. If people are exposed to levels less than the MRL, then noncancer adverse health effects are not expected to result from the exposure. MRLs were developed considering only noncancerous health effects and are based on occupational and animal studies (3). If an exposure dose exceeds an MRL, then the exposure is further evaluated to determine if the dose might be associated with a noncancer adverse health outcome. More information on chemicals detected at selected site locations and on MRLs is located in Appendices A and B. For this evaluation, we also considered possible cancer effects because the petitioner and others were concerned about people who had developed cancer.

Swilling Creek Water and Tap Water

GEPD sampled surface water at nearby Swilling Creek. On March 8, 2000, samples were taken from two locations along Swilling Creek: downstream near Sweet Bottom Plantation and upstream at a conduit outfall behind the shopping center. Analyses of the stream samples showed the water was free of dry cleaning chemicals and other VOCs (4).

As part of the assessment, EEI collected tap water samples for analysis to evaluate whether water supply lines to Peachtree Hill Shopping Center had been impacted by PCE or its degradation products in nearby soils. Tap water samples were collected from the Wallpaper Store, Easy Mail, and the former Costume Shop. Samples were collected from the faucets in the restroom at each store. Tap water samples contained vinyl chloride, which is a breakdown product of PCE and other products, sometimes including plastic water pipes; 1,1-dichloroethene; and the trihalomethanes bromodichloromethane and chloroform. Trihalomethanes are often found in public water supplies. They are formed when water is disinfected with chlorine products to prevent bacteria from growing in the water. Exposure to each of those chemicals was further evaluated, and the results of the evaluations follow.

Vinyl Chloride

Vinyl chloride was present in tap water at a level less than the laboratory detection limit of 2 ppb. Because the laboratory detection limit was greater than the comparison value of 0.02 ppb, we assumed a worst-case condition that vinyl chloride was present at 2 ppb. The Maximum Contaminant Level, the level that public drinking water supplies cannot exceed, for vinyl chloride is 2 ppb (see Appendix B), and that is why the laboratory detection limit was set at 2 ppb.

In estimating the exposure dose, we assumed that a 10 kilogram (about 22 pounds) child drinks 1 liter of water per day for over a year and that a 70 kilogram (about 155 pounds) adult drinks 2 liters of water per day for over a year. Because the levels are in businesses, children are not likely to drink the water every day. We used the worst-case conditions to estimate the exposures to be sure all sensitive populations were considered. The estimated exposure doses are presented in Table 2. The estimated adult exposure is less than the MRL; therefore, adults exposed to the level of vinyl chloride are not expected to develop noncancer, adverse health effects. Because the estimated child's dose did exceed the MRL, we further evaluated that possible exposure.

No information was found about harmful, noncancer health effects in people after ingesting vinyl chloride. The lowest dose found to have an effect in animals was 0.02 milligrams/kilogram/day (mg/kg/day), which was 100 times more than the highest possible child's dose estimated. At 0.02 mg/kg/day, some female rats developed changes in their cells. The effects were not considered serious (6). Because the levels that caused effects in the animal study were much greater than the estimated child exposure dose at the shopping center, no adverse, noncancer health effects are expected for children that might be exposed to the vinyl chloride in the water.

Vinyl chloride is known to cause cancer in people who inhale high levels of it, but less is known about whether cancer might result from ingestion of vinyl chloride. Some animals who ingested vinyl chloride at 0.3 mg/kg/day developed liver cancer (hepatic angiosarcoma). The level that caused cancer in some mice is more than l,000 times greater than the current estimated child's dose of 0.0002 mg/kg/day at the site. For that reason and because the exposure doses are actually lower than what we estimated, people exposed to vinyl chloride in the tap water are not likely to develop cancer as a result of ingesting the vinyl chloride.

1,1-Dichloroethene

The compound 1,1-dichloroethene was measured at less than 1 ppb, which was the laboratory detection limit. The comparison value for 1,1-dichloroethene is 0.06 ppb. Therefore, we assumed that people would be exposed to 1 ppb. The estimated exposure doses are presented in Table 2. Neither the adult nor the child's estimated doses exceeded the MRL; therefore, no one is expected to develop noncancer, adverse health effects as a result of their exposure to 1,1-dichloroethene in the tap water.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) lists the chemical as a possible human carcinogen on the bases of limited animal studies. For that reason, we reviewed information about 1,1-dichloroethene exposure and cancer. The risk that anyone would develop cancer as a result of ingesting the level of 1,1-dichloroethene in the tap water is very low. People who drink water at the levels found in tap water at the site are not expected to develop cancer as a result of their exposure.

Trihalomethanes

The trihalomethanes (THM) bromodichloromethane and chloroform were detected at concentrations above ATSDR comparison values. We evaluated exposure to both chemicals, although their presence is likely the result of disinfecting the public water supply rather than from any contamination that can be attributed to the dry cleaning facility.

Bromodichloromethane

An ingestion dose for bromodichloromethane in tap water was calculated for adults and children. The estimated exposure doses for bromodichloromethane for adults and children were below the MRL (Table 2). Therefore, no adverse, noncancerous health effects are expected to result from that exposure.

Studies suggest that bromodichloromethane might cause cancer in humans because it has been linked to liver, kidney, and intestinal cancer in some animals exposed to large amounts over a long period of time (6). Animals given 50 to 100 mg/kg/day, or about 100,000 times more than the dose that would result from ingesting the tap water sampled, developed intestinal cancer. People exposed to the level of bromodichloromethane found in the tap water at this site are not likely to develop cancer as a result of their of exposure.

Chloroform

Chloroform, the other THM detected in tap water, was found at 9.5 ppb. The comparison value is 6 ppb. Ingestion doses, as presented in Table 2, were calculated for adults and children. The estimated exposure doses to chloroform for adults and children are below the MRLs (Table 2). Therefore, no adverse, noncancerous health effects are expected to occur as a result of this exposure.

EPA lists chloroform as a probable human carcinogen on the bases of animal studies. Animal studies suggest that liver and kidney cancer developed after drinking or eating large amounts of chloroform, about 100,000 times more than a child's dose would be at the shopping center, over a long time. People who drink the level of chloroform found in the water are not likely to develop cancer as a result of their exposure.

Outdoor and Indoor Air

EEI conducted outdoor and indoor air quality testing as part of the site assessment. Consultants placed sixteen stainless steel Summa collection canisters at locations throughout the shopping center. The canisters were pre-cleaned and programmed to collect a time-integrated sample over an eight-hour period (a typical work day time period). Samples were taken from the adjacent out parcel, from the shopping center loading dock, and from selected retail shops. Background air samples were also collected near the site (Figure 1). Chemicals detected above comparison values at each location tested are listed in Tables 3-6. The inhalation exposure equals the concentration in air. The levels were reported in ppb.

Air data indicate that low levels of chemicals are present in sampling locations throughout the shopping center. The samples were analyzed for PCE, its breakdown products, and other VOCs. No air data were found from the time the PCE was found beneath the dry cleaning machine through the remediation of the PCE spill.

Background samples collected upwind of the retail stores at the Peachtree Hill Shopping Center contained similar chemicals at low levels as found at the shopping center. Background levels represent levels of chemicals people are breathing in their air as a result of industrial and natural chemical releases. PCE was measured at 2.4 ppb at the out parcel and at 99 ppb in the service corridor. The service corridor sample was above the 40 ppb comparison value. Service corridor samples had the highest levels of all the contaminants of interest, including vinyl chloride, chloroform, l,1-dichloroethene, methylene chloride, and benzene (2). Exposure to all the chemicals listed, including methylene chloride and benzene, which are not PCE breakdown products nor are used directly in dry cleaning, was evaluated for possible health impacts.

Vinyl Chloride

The highest level of vinyl chloride was less than 12 ppb in air and was measured in a duplicate sample taken from the service corridor near the former Cachet Classic Cleaners. The inhalation exposure dose did not exceed the MRL (Table 1). Therefore, no adverse, noncancerous health effects are expect to result from exposure even if both breathing and ingesting vinyl chloride are considered.

Vinyl chloride is known to cause cancer in humans through the inhalation route of exposure. A rare form of liver cancer has appeared at greater incidence ratesamong workers occupationally exposed to high concentrations over a long period of time. Some studies suggest that vinyl chloride exposure might also be associated with brain and central nervous system cancer and with lung and respiratory tract cancer. (6). Few studies have focused on women occupationally exposed to vinyl chloride. One study found women working in the production of vinyl chloride had a significantly greater chance of developing leukemia and lymphoma. No significant increases in men for any type of cancer were found in that report (6). Although no vinyl chloride concentrations associated with those illnesses were mentioned in the occupational exposure studies, federal occupational exposure limits have been established. The occupational exposure limit is 80 times higher than current concentrations detected in air at the site. Occupational permissible exposure limits assume a person is exposed 5 days a week for eight hours a day.

Because the people at the shopping center are not considered to be occupationally exposed, we further evaluated other cancer studies. In animal studies, rats exposed to between 5 and 50 parts per million (ppm) had higher rates of mammary gland carcinoma and liver angiosarcoma. However, vinyl chloride concentrations in air at this site are 400 to 4,000 times lower than levels that produced cancerous effects in animals. For that reason, people exposed to vinyl chloride in the air at the shopping center would not likely develop cancer as a result of their exposure.

Benzene

The highest level of benzene that was detected in the air was 2 ppb in the service corridor near the former costume shop. The comparison value for this chemical is 0.03 ppb. Background levels of benzene in the air range from 2.8 ppb to 20 ppb. The levels found at the shopping center were below the MRL for inhalation of benzene. For that reason, no noncancer, adverse health effects are expected as a result of the exposure.

Benzene is known to cause cancer when humans inhale it because studies show some people exposed to benzene through their occupation have developed blood diseases, including a specific type of leukemia (6). Long-term, inhalation exposure to relatively high levels of benzene (20 to over 264,000 ppb) has been associated with development of acute myeloid leukemia. At the levels found at the site, people are unlikely to develop cancer as a result of their exposure.

1,1-Dichloroethene

The highest level of 1,1-dichloroethene detected in air was less than 12 ppb in a duplicate sample taken in the service corridor near the former Cachet Classic Cleaners. The comparison value for this compound is 0.005 ppb. Adult and child exposure doses to 1,1-dichloroethene in air were below the MRLs for air (Table 1); therefore, exposures are not expected to cause noncancerous health effects even after both inhalation and ingestion exposures are considered.

EPA lists the chemical as a possible human carcinogen on the bases of limited animal studies. After a review of the literature, we found that people at the shopping center are not expected to develop cancer as a result of their exposure because the levels are much lower than any associated with levels in the animal studies.

Tetrachloroethylene (PCE)

PCE levels were recorded highest inside the former costume shop. The 99 ppb PCE level detected in the costume shop exceeded the 40 ppb comparison value and the MRL. Because the exposure dose exceeded the MRL, we reviewed available literature to determine if the exposure could result in adverse health effects. A review of the data suggests that noncancerous adverse health effects are not likely from exposure to levels found in the costume shop because the levels were much lower than those found to cause health effects.

The background level of PCE in air is usually less than 1 ppb. The air levels close to dry cleaning shops and chemical waste sites are usually higher than background. Those levels are usually less than 1 ppm (1,000 ppb), the level at which you can smell it, and about 10 times lower than the highest level found in air at the shopping center when samples were collected.

Because we do not know what PCE levels might have been present before and during remediation, we thought that information from some of the studies would be of interest. Long-term health effects caused by breathing air with low levels of PCE are not known. In industry, most workers are exposed to levels lower than acute doses that may cause dizziness and confusion (1,000 to 2,500 ppm) (6). People at Peachtree Hill Shopping Center were exposed to levels 1,000 to 2,500 times less than those known to produce acute physical symptoms in humans and about 1,000 times less than the federal occupational permissible exposure limit (6). Some studies suggest women who work in the dry cleaning industry where exposure to PCE can be very high (actual levels were not provided) might have more menstrual problems and spontaneous abortions than women who are not exposed. However, no definite conclusion can be made because of the limitations of the studies. In a study of 22 dry cleaning workers (mostly women) in Belgium exposed to a time weighted average of 16 ppm over six years, no significant alterations in neurological symptoms or motor performances were noted in comparison with an unexposed group of people. Measured air concentrations are 1,600 times lower at the shopping center than levels for that study group.

The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classifies PCE as a possible human carcinogen. Animals exposed by both ingestion and inhalation to high levels of PCE developed liver cancer, leukemia, or kidney cancer. Studies are inconclusive about whether PCE might cause cancer in people. In studies of occupational exposure to PCE, simultaneous exposure to other chemicals in the work place confounded study results. Because we do not have good studies about PCE as a human carcinogen, we cannot evaluate the exposures. Kidney, bladder, and cervical cancer was found elevated in one study of dry cleaning workers, but the workers were also exposed to other chemicals. Additionally, the study did not control for smoking, which has also been associated with kidney and bladder cancer (6). The levels of exposure to the workers was much higher than the measured levels at the shopping center. For that reason, people who are now working and shopping at the shopping center are not likely to develop cancer as a result of exposure to the levels measured.

Methylene Chloride

The highest level of methylene chloride detected in air was 660 ppb in the service corridor near Easy Mail. The comparison value for this compound is 0.005 ppb. You can be exposed to methylene chloride in air, water, food, and consumer products. Methylene chloride evaporates easily into air. Contact with consumer products such as paint strippers or aerosol cans that contain methylene chloride usually occurs in workplaces where the products are used. Methylene chloride is also a common laboratory contaminant. In some workplaces, concentrations ranging from 1 to 1,000 ppm (1,000 ppb to 1,000,000 ppb) of air have been detected in the general area of some workers.

Because exposure at the shopping center exceeded the MRL, we further evaluated the exposure. Breathing methylene chloride in large amounts (800 ppm or 800,000 ppb) over a long exposure period may cause dizziness, nausea, or tingling or numbness of the fingers and toes, but the levels present at this site are about 1,200 times lower than the concentrations that produced those physical effects. For that reason, people breathing the levels of methylene chloride at the shopping center are not likely to have noncancer, adverse health effects as a result of their exposure.

Methylene chloride has not been found to cause cancer in humans exposed to vapors in the workplace. However, breathing high concentrations of methylene chloride for long periods of time did increase the incidence of cancer in mice. People exposed to the levels measured at the shopping center are not likely to develop cancer as a result of their exposure.


CHILD HEALTH INITIATIVE

ATSDR and GDPH recognize that children have unique vulnerabilities to contamination in their water, soil, air, and food. Children are at greater risk of developing harmful health effects than adults when exposed to some hazardous substances emitted from waste sites and emergency events. They are more likely to be exposed because they play outdoors, and they often bring food into contaminated areas. They are more likely to come into contact with dust, soil, and heavy vapors close to the ground. Also, they receive higher doses of chemicals because of their lower body weights. The developing body systems of children can sustain permanent damage if toxic exposures occur during critical growth stages.

After review of toxicological data, we did not identify any current exposure situations that would cause children harm at this site. We cannot evaluate effects any past exposure might have had because no data are available to indicate what might have been present when the dry cleaning operation was using PCE or when site remediation was conducted.


COMMUNITY HEALTH CONCERNS

From the petition letter submitted to ATSDR, the petitioner described the following community health concerns.

Concern: People in the Peachtree Hills Shopping Center may have been exposed to PCE from breathing contaminated air and through dermal contact.

Response: GDPH used data reported in the Site Assessment Report for Cachet Classic Cleaners, dated February 2000, prepared by Environment and Ecology Incorporated, to assess potential inhalation exposures to air contaminants including dry-cleaning solvents. Yes, people are exposed to PCE in the air where they work or shop, but measured levels are much lower than any we know to cause illness. We cannot evaluate exposures that occurred when the dry cleaning facility used PCE and when site clean up was conducted because air data were not available for those times.

Concern: The petitioner conducted a survey of the health status of Peachtree Hill Shopping Center tenants and found cases of skin irritation, various cancers, miscarriage, cardiac arrhythmia, immunological effects, and deaths he feels might be associated with exposures.

Response: The limited data that we have suggest that measured levels of contamination at the shopping center are not likely to cause illnesses mentioned. No information is available to tell us what might have been present in the air at the shopping center when PCE was used at the dry cleaning facility.

We do have one study that suggests some women exposed to PCE in dry cleaning establishments might have experienced a higher incidence of miscarriage than women who were not exposed, but that study had limitations. We also know that some people can experience skin irritation if they put their hands into a PCE solution.

One in four people develop some kind of cancer during their lifetime. We do not know what causes most cancers. The number of people who work at the shopping center is too small to be able to detect whether any particular type of cancer is elevated. Furthermore, the people at the shopping center have different types of cancer, each of which may have a different cause.We do not know what people contacted several years ago, but measured levels from the EEI investigation appear to be too low to result in harmful health effects.

Concern: ATSDR should evaluate the health implications to the tenants of Peachtree Hills Shopping Center, Sweetbottom Plantation, Plantation Trace Apartments, and small commercial establishments near the Cleaners.

Response: GDPH, in cooperation with ATSDR, evaluated possible health impacts for people at the shopping center and in the vicinity of the shopping center. The only data available were collected and analyzed after the dry cleaning facility stopped using PCE and after clean up activities were completed. The data indicate that current contaminant levels should not cause adverse health effects. We cannot evaluate any previous exposure that might have occurred.

Concern: People may become exposed through contaminated groundwater migration away from the shopping center into nearby apartment complexes.

Response: Public water is provided in this area, and no private wells are used for drinking water supplies within two miles of the site. Tap water was evaluated at the shopping center, and levels of contaminants in the water were too low to be associated with harmful health effects. Two of the contaminants are commonly found in public water supplies that are disinfected with chlorine products. Although the nearby apartment complex water was not tested, the same water supply is used as for the shopping center. Therefore, levels of chemicals present in the shopping center tap water are expected to be similar to those at the apartment complex. Additionally, water lines are under pressure that helps prevent any contamination that might be present in soil from entering the drinking water lines. The levels present in the shopping center water are considered safe even if the water is ingested daily.


CONCLUSIONS

GDPH concludes this site currently does not pose a public health hazard. Air sampling revealed methylene chloride exposure exceeded the MRL in service corridor locations, and PCE exposure exceeded the MRL in the former costume shop. For that reason, exposures were further evaluated. After further review of the studies available, exposure levels are not expected to cause adverse health effects in people working at or visiting those locations.

No conclusions can be made about past exposure conditions at the shopping center because no data are available for evaluation.


RECOMMENDATIONS AND PUBLIC HEALTH ACTION PLAN

Peachtree Hill Shopping Center's owner should submit any sampling data that might have been gathered during remedial actions to GEPD and to ATSDR as requested. If any data are available, ATSDR should evaluate the data.

GDPH will provide health information to employees if any further concerns arise.


REFERENCES

1. Site Assessment Report (SAR) for the Former Cachet Cleaners Site, Duluth, Georgia (HIS # 10541, Contract No. 661778-2-03), Ecology and Environmental, Inc. February 2000

2. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Letter to Dr. James Dugal, Stat Medical Care, Alpharetta, Georgia 30022

3. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Public Health Assessment Guidance Manual, Lewis Publishers, 1992.

4. Trip Report, Swilling Creek Stream Sampling Event, Duluth, Georgia, David Brownlee, Environmental Engineer, Georgia Environmental Protection Division, March 2000

5. Environmental Corporation of America, Groundwater Analytical Results, Outparcel West of Peachtree Hill Shopping Center, Duluth, Georgia, September 1999

6. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, U.S. Public Service: Toxicological Profiles on CD-ROM, 1999


PREPARERS AND REVIEWER OF REPORT

Preparer

Maurice Redmond, Consultant
Health Hazards Consultation Section
Georgia Division of Public Health


Reviewer

David Brownlee, Environmental Engineer
Hazardous Site Response Program
Georgia Environmental Protection Division


ATSDR Technical Project Officer

Gail Godfrey, Environmental Health Scientist
Division of Health Assessment and Consultation


ATSDR Regional Representative

Robert Safay, Senior Representative


CERTIFICATION

The Georgia Department of Human Resources, Division of Public Health prepared this Cachet Classic Cleaners Health Consultation under a cooperative agreement with the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). It is in accordance with approved methodology and procedures existing at the time the health consultation was begun.

Gail D. Godfrey
Technical Project Officer, SPS, SSAB, DHAC


The Division of Health Assessment and Consultation, ATSDR, has reviewed this health consultation and concurs with the findings.

Richard Gillig
Chief, SPS, SSAB, DHAC, ATSDR


Peachtree Hills Shopping Center - 1/2, 1, 2, and 3 Mile Radii Well Locations
Figure: Peachtree Hills Shopping Center - 1/2, 1, 2, and 3 Mile Radii Well Locations


APPENDIX A: TABLES

Table 1. Air Contaminants Exceeding Comparison Values. All units in parts per billion (ppb)

Chemical

CV 1

MRL 2

Outside Shops (Front)

Inside Shops

Background

Service Corridor

Out Parcel

Tetrachloro-ethylene (PCE)

40
(EMEG3)

40

----

99

----

----

----

Vinyl Chloride

0.04
(CREG4)

30*

<0.54

<5.8

<0.41

<9.5

<0.65

Chloroform

0.008
(CREG)

20

<0.54

<5.8

<0.41

<12.0

<0.65

1,1-Dichloro-ethene

0.005
(CREG)

20*

<0.54

<5.8

<0.41

<12.0

<0.65

Methylene Chloride

0.86
(CREG)

300

13B5

260

36J6B

660

----

Benzene

0.03
(CREG)

4*

0.81

0.93J

0.30J

2.0

----

1CV = Comparison Value
2MRL = Minimal Risk Level
3EMEG = Environmental Media Evaluation Guide
---- = Contaminant not present above the comparison value
4CREG = Cancer Risk Evaluation Guide
* = Intermediate MRL (MRL for exposure that occurs from over 2 weeks up to 1 year)
5B = Contaminant was found in the blank as well as in the sample
6J = Contaminant is an estimated level


Table 2. Contaminant Concentrations Found in Tap Water Samples

Contaminant

Easy Mail ppb 1

Cachet ppb

Costume Shop ppb

Comparison Value ppb

Maximum Contaminant Level ppb

Estimated Doses mg/kg/day 2

Minimal Risk Level mg/kg/day

Bromodichloromethane

4.29

4.22

4.34

0.6 (CREG3)

100

Adult = 0.0001
Child = 0.0004

0.02

1,1-Dichloroethene

<1.0

<1.0

<1.0

0.06 (CREG)

7

Adult = 0.00003
Child = 0.0001

0.009

Vinyl Chloride

<2.0

<2.0

<2.0

0.02 (CREG)

2

Adult = 0.00006
Child = 0.0002

0.00002

Chloroform

16.5

16.7

16.2

6.0 (CREG)

100

Adult =0.0005
Child = 0.002

0.01

1ppb = parts per billion
2mg/kg/day = milligram per kilogram per day
3CREG = Cancer Risk Evaluation Guide


Table 3. Air Contaminants Found at Former Cachet Classic Cleaners

Contaminant

Front of Store ppb 1

Inside of Store ppb

Corridor ppb

Minimal Risk Level ppb

Vinyl Chloride

<0.54

<2.1

<12

30*

Benzene

0.65

0.87J2

----

4*

Chloroform

0.54

<2.1

<12

20

Methylene Chloride

13B3

130B

370B

300

1,1-Dichloroethene

<054

<2.1

<12

20*

1ppb = parts per billion
* = Intermediate MRL
2J = estimated concentration
---- = not present above comparison value
3B = contaminant present in the blank


Table 4. Air Contaminants Found at Easy Mail

Contaminant

Front of Store ppb 1

Inside of Store ppb

Corridor ppb

Minimal Risk Level ppb

Vinyl Chloride

<0.4

<5.8

<9.5

30*

Benzene

0.81

----

----

4*

Chloroform

<0.4

<5.8

<9.5

20

Methylene Chloride

1.2

260

660

300

1,1-Dichloroethene

<0.4

<5.8

<9.5

20*

1ppb = parts per billion
* = Intermediate MRL
---- = not present above comparison value


Table 5. Air Contaminants Found at the Former Costume Shop

Contaminant

Front of Store ppb 1

Inside of Store ppb

Corridor ppb

Minimal Risk Level ppb

Tetrachloroethylene (PCE)

0.43J2

99

24

40

Vinyl Chloride

<0.53

<2.8

<2.0

30*

Benzene

0.79

0.93J

2.0

4*

Chloroform

<0.54

<2.8

<2.0

20

Methylene Chloride

4.1B3

31B

120B

300

1,1-Dichloroethene

<0.5

<2.8

<2.0

20*

1ppb = parts per billion
2J = estimated concentration
* = Intermediate MRL
3B = contaminant present in the blank


Table 6. Air Contaminants Found at the Out Parcel, at the Loading Dock, and at Background Sampling Locations

Contaminant

Out Parcel ppb 1

Loading Dock ppb

Background ppb

Minimal Risk Level ppb

Vinyl Chloride

<0.65

<0.40

<0.41

30*

Benzene

----

0.31J2

0.30J

4*

Chloroform

<0.65

<0.40

<0.41

20

1,1-Dichloroethene

<0.65

<0.40

<0.41

20*

1ppb = parts per billion
* = Intermediate MRL
---- = not found above comparison value
2J = estimated concentration


APPENDIX B: COMPARISON VALUES AND MINIMAL RISK LEVELS

Comparison Values are contaminant concentrations that are found in specific environmental media (air, soil, and drinking water) that are used to select contaminants for further evaluation if people are exposed to the contamination. Comparison values used in this document are defined in the following paragraphs.

Cancer Risk Evaluation Guide (CREG) is the estimated contaminant concentration that would be expected to cause no more than one excess cancer in one million (1 x 10-6) persons exposed over a lifetime (70 years). CREGs are calculated using the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's cancer slope factors.

Environmental Media Evaluation Guide (EMEG) is based on minimal risk levels (MRLs). Contaminants present in environmental media below the EMEG are safe levels.

Reference Dose Media Evaluation Guide (RMEG) is based on the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Reference Dose. Like the EMEG, contaminants present in environmental media below the RMEG are safe levels.

Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) are the maximum permissible levels of contaminants allowed in public water supplies. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) deems exposure over a lifetime (70 years) to the MCL protective of public health at an exposure rate of drinking 2 liters of water per day for an adult and 1 liter of water per day for a child. In establishing MCLs, EPA is required to consider factors, such as whether the technology is available to achieve the level, in addition to public health factors.

A Minimal Risk Level (MRL) is an estimate of daily human exposure to a chemical (in milligrams/kilogram/day) that is likely to be without an appreciable risk of harmful effects (noncarcinogenic) over a specified duration of exposure. MRLs are based on human and animal studies of noncancer effects and are reported for acute (14 days), intermediate (15-364 days), and chronic (365 days) exposures. Where sufficient toxicological information is available, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) has derived MRLs for inhalation and oral routes of exposure at each duration of exposure (acute, intermediate, and chronic). MRLs are published in ATSDR's Toxicological Profiles for specific chemicals.


APPENDIX C: EXPOSURE DOSE CALCULATIONS

Exposure Doses are derived by calculating the amount of a contaminant that is taken into the body of an exposed person over a period of time. The following equation was used in this health consultation to estimate the exposure doses resulting from ingestion of contaminated groundwater:

ID sub W equals C times IR divided by BW

where:

ID w = exposure dose water
C = contaminant concentration (highest level found in a specific medium)
IR = intake rate of contaminated medium (based on average ingestion rates of 2 liter/day for adults; 1 liter/day for children)
BW = body weight (based on average weights for adults: 70 kg ; children: 10 kg)

The inhalation dose is equal to the concentration of the contaminant in air; therefore, no calculation is needed to determine the inhalation dose.


Peachtree Hills


Figure 1. Peachtree Hills 5. Vitos NY Pizza
KEY: 6. Wallpaper (former Cachet Cleaners)
1. Cachet Cleaners 7. American Nails
2. Doctors Medical Center 8. Stranz Hair Studio
3. Costume Shop 9. Easy Mail
4. Sprint PCS 10. Olympus Dry Cleaners
  * Summa Cannister Sampling Location


RESPONSE TO PETITIONER'S VERBAL COMMENTS

At the request of the petitioner, representatives from the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), Division of Health Assessment and Consultation, and the Georgia Division of Public Health (GDPH), Health Hazards Consultation Unit held a meeting with the petitioner to discuss the Former Cachet Cleaners Health Consultation released in February 2001. Concurrently, to allow for additional public input, ATSDR reissued the health consultation on April 2, 2001, with a public comment period ending June 23, 2001. No written comments were received during the public comment period. However, a response to some comments from the petitioner at the meeting are addressed.

The meeting provided the petitioner an opportunity to present health-related information and to express other site-specific exposure concerns with representatives from the federal and state health agencies. During the meeting, the petitioner raised concerns that some health-related conditions reported by shopping center tenants were linked to exposure to tetrachloroethylene (PCE) released at the former dry cleaning facility. An ATSDR staff physician was present to provide clinical expertise on exposure and disease manifestation. The ATSDR physician also offered assistance in reviewing patient exposure histories or any anecdotal evidence collected informally or formally by the petitioner. To date, no additional health-related information has been provided to ATSDR for review.

In the discussion, there were concerns highlighted that we will try to clarify below:

Concern: How did the Georgia Environmental Protection Division (GEPD) conduct the water well survey around the Cachet Cleaners site?

Response: In March 1999, GEPD conducted a listing inspection of the dry cleaning facility after receiving a supplemental release notification and inquiries from citizens. The inspection was to verify several issues including existence and uses of water wells located within a one-mile radius of the site. Using a well map (figure 1) produced with data from the United States Geologic Survey (USGS), GEPD Water Resources Branch, and the United States Bureau of Census, GEPD personnel conducted a visual inspection of the surrounding area to verify the information and to locate additional wells. One well on the map was shown within a one mile radius of the site. After conversations with local residents, the well was located and found no longer in service. No other active water wells were found or reported to GEPD.

Also, in 1995, Peachtree Hills Associates Limited Partnership submitted a release notification along with a site assessment report authored by Dames & Moore on the Former Cachet Cleaners. In the assessment, a well survey was conducted to locate the nearest drinking water wells. The well survey included a search of the USGS database, conversations with the Gwinnett County and city of Duluth public utilities and a visual survey of the area. The Dames & Moore water well survey concluded that the distance to the nearest well or spring used for drinking was 2 to 3 miles. This information was provided to the GEPD for reference.

Concern: Does soil need to be excavated at the site where the tetrachloroethylene was released from the dry cleaning machine?

Response: In 1995, GEPD did not place the Former Cachet Cleaners on the Hazardous Site Inventory. Therefore, the owners elected to conduct a voluntary clean-up of contaminated soil and groundwater. Under the dry cleaning facility, tetrachloroethylene in soil was initially measured at 8,700 mg/kg. No dry cleaning solvents were detected in any of the outparcel soil samples. The owner's selected clean up remedy used soil vapor extraction and air sparging systems to remediate the soil. The PCE level in soil was reduced to 73.6 mg/kg, which is below GEPD type 2 risk reduction standards for residential properties. The remaining impacted soil is located beneath the building where long-term ingestion or dermal contact are unlikely. An air exposure pathway analysis was conducted for the health consultation. Low levels of PCE were detected in some indoor and ambient air samples. However, the presence of these low levels in air were not considered a health hazard.



Table of Contents

  
 
USA.gov: The U.S. Government's Official Web PortalDepartment of Health and Human Services
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, 4770 Buford Hwy NE, Atlanta, GA 30341
Contact CDC: 800-232-4636 / TTY: 888-232-6348

A-Z Index

  1. A
  2. B
  3. C
  4. D
  5. E
  6. F
  7. G
  8. H
  9. I
  10. J
  11. K
  12. L
  13. M
  14. N
  15. O
  16. P
  17. Q
  18. R
  19. S
  20. T
  21. U
  22. V
  23. W
  24. X
  25. Y
  26. Z
  27. #