PUBLIC HEALTH ASSESSMENT

/HAC/PHA/reports/kalama_06231993sc/images/kalAMA SPECIALTY
BURTON, BEAUFORT COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA

APPENDIX A

Figure 1. General Location Map

Figure 2. Study Area Location Map

Figure 3. Site Map With Topography

Figure 4. Facility Map Showing Soil Sampling Locations, July 1989

Figure 5. March 1990 Second Phase Soil Sampling Locations

Figure 6. Site Map With Monitoring Wells and Sampling Points for Surface Water and Sediment

APPENDIX B

TABLE 2

B-Also detected in associated laboratory blank
E-Estimated value out of detection range
J-Estimated value lower than detection limit
mg/kg-Milligram per kilogram
ND-Not detected

B-Also detected in associated laboratory blank
E-Estimated value out of detection range
J-Estimated value lower than detection limit
µg/L-Microgram per liter
ND-Not detected

APPENDIX C

Response to Comments Received During the Public Comment Period

The /HAC/PHA/reports/kalama_06231993sc/images/kalama Specialty Public Health Assessment (PHA) was completed in May 1992. The PHAis based on the December 1991 Remedial Investigation report. As this report was the latest sourceof data available. A new Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study and Baseline RiskAssessment were available in June and July of 1992. The new data included in these documentsdo not reflect major changes to the findings and conclusions of the PHA. However, our office hasreviewed the newer documents and have incorporated that information into this PHA.

The following responses address technical comments submitted by the public during the publiccomment period of September 24, 1992 to October 26, 1992. Comments received about thereport's format will not be addressed as the document was prepared in accordance with ATSDR'sPublic Health Assessment Guidance Manual, March 1992.

1. A concern was expressed about the recommendation that off-site ambient air and soil be sampled.

   One of the missions in completing a public health assessment is to evaluate every possible exposure pathway. Because ambient air and off-site soil were never sampled, the recommendation that ambient air and soil be sampled was made to identify a data gap. Following ATSDR protocol, data gaps are identified and included as recommendations in the PHA.

2. A concern was expressed about the contaminants identified as being of concern for the /HAC/PHA/reports/kalama_06231993sc/images/kalama site's public health assessment.

   In this public health assessment, all the chemicals identified and presented in the Remedial Investigation were evaluated. The chemicals that were detected at levels of human health concern were identified as contaminants of concern. Some of the chemicals identified as being of concern in this document may not be site related; the purpose of the public health assessment is to evaluate possible adverse health effects to humans from exposures to all the contaminants identified.

   Sodium was included as a contaminant of concern because groundwater samples detected sodium at elevated concentrations. While sodium may not be a site-related contaminant, it is discussed in this PHA because of the potential for exposures to result in adverse health effects.

   Some of the contaminants were only detected in one media and may not be site-related; however, additional sampling could determine if the contaminant is site related or a laboratory artifact.

3. The reviewer was concerned that the PHA does not address the existence of a clay confining layer which "has been demonstrated to inhibit communication of groundwater between the shallow and regional aquifers at the site". The reviewer also referred to a computer modeling's conclusion that on-site monitoring well 46 is not the source of 1,2-DCA contamination found in the lower aquifer.

   During the review of each of the first four RI/FS documents, reviewers from the EPA, the EPA's oversight contractor, SCDHEC, the South Carolina Water Resources Commission and the University of South Carolina repeatedly expressed concerns on the following two major issues and believe that:
   
   

   1)	A continuous confining layer does not underlie the entire site to prevent the contaminants in the water-table aquifer from migrating into the underlying limestone aquifer.
   2)	It has not been fully determined whether or not the 1,2-DCA detected in the concrete plant production wells originated from the /HAC/PHA/reports/kalama_06231993sc/images/kalama site.

   Subsequent to EPA's decision to take the lead on the site from the responsible party, PBS&J revised the RI/FS documents and submitted a fifth version of the RI/FS reports in January 1993.

   The January 1993 RI/FS reports recognizes the limitations of the data collected and analyzed during the RI/FS. The model could not produce reliable results to fully determine whether 1,2-DCA was generated at the site. The reports still contain some inconsistencies and deficiencies that need to be revised. Therefore, the position of this PHA remains the same.

Table of Contents