PUBLIC HEALTH ASSESSMENT
PORT HADLOCK DETACHMENT
NAVAL ORDNANCE CENTER,
PACIFIC DIVISION
INDIAN ISLAND, WASHINGTON
| Pathway Name | Potential Source of Contamination |
Environmental Medium | Point of Exposure | Route of Exposure | Exposed Population |
Comments |
| Consumption of Contaminated Shellfish Located Adjacent to Site 10 and Along Boggy Spit | Site 10 North End Landfill |
Shellfish | Shellfish beds adjacent to Site 10 and along Boggy Spit | Ingestion | Past:
Prior to 1988, Native American tribal members and Naval employees fished
in these shellfish beds. Current: No one is being exposed to the shellfish. (A ban prohibiting shellfishing in these beds has been in place since 1988. No trespassers have been caught violating the ban.) Future: The beds could be reopened in the future. |
Past:
Exposure to contaminated shellfish may have posed a health hazard to subsistence
fishers and recreational fishers. Current: The current ban reduces public health hazards by preventing consumption of potentially contaminated shellfish. Although it is impossible to conclusively state that no one is trespassing and violating the ban, the Navy's security has never reported any occurrences of trespassing. Signs are posted to inform people of the bans in these areas. Additional signs in several languages will be posted in the near future. If the ban were not in place, shellfish contaminants could pose a health hazard to subsistence and recreational fishers. ATSDR recommends that people adhere to the shellfish harvesting ban to reduce potential exposures to shellfish contamination. Future: Measures taken by the Navy will prevent future health hazards by (1) minimizing further contamination of the marine environment, and (2) ensuring that the beaches remain closed until the contaminant concentrations decrease to levels that do not pose a health hazard. |
| Consumption of Contaminated Shellfish Along the North-Northwestern Shores of Marrowstone Island | Unknown | Shellfish | Shellfish beds along the northern and northwestern shores of Marrowstone Island | Ingestion | Past, Current and Future: The shellfish beds were (past scenario) and are (current scenario) used for shellfishing. There are currently no restrictions planned for the future. | Past, Current and Future: Based on limited sampling data, ATSDR concludes that shellfish consumed along the north-northwestern shores of Marrowstone Island may have posed a past health hazard. Current and future consumption of these shellfish is not expected to pose health hazards, however. |
| Exposure to Groundwater Potentially Impacted
by Site 21
|
Site 21 Central Island disposal site |
Groundwater | Water from backup water supply wells Nos. 1 and 2 | Ingestion Inhalation Dermal |
Past:
People on base may have used backup water supply wells Nos. 1 and 2 between
1941 and 1945. Current: No one is being exposed to groundwater in the vicinity of Site 21 (Backup water supply wells Nos. 1 and 2 are closed). Future: Backup water supply wells Nos. 1 and 2 could be reopened in the future. Additionally, a new well could be installed in the future. |
Past:
Past exposures to groundwater cannot be evaluated. (Water supply wells Nos.
1 and 2 may have been used from 1941 to 1945, however, data are not available
to address possible exposures to groundwater contamination during this 4-year
period.) Current: No production wells are being used in the vicinity of Site 21. Because there is no potential for exposures, Site 21 does not pose a health hazard. Future: It is highly unlikely that future consumption of groundwater in the vicinity of Site 21 will pose a public health hazard. The Washington Department of Ecology, EPA, and the Navy are analyzing groundwater monitoring data collected from the area. If these agencies decide that contaminant concentrations pose a public health hazard, backup water supply wells Nos. 1 and 2 will be abandoned and deed restrictions will be implemented to prevent the installation of future wells. |
Tables 2 - 4 were not available in electronic format for conversion to HTML at the time of preparation of this document. To obtain a hard copy of the document, please contact:
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
Division of Health Assessment and Consultation
Attn: Chief, Program Evaluation, Records, and Information Services Branch, E-56
1600 Clifton Road NE, Atlanta, Georgia 30333
Table 5
Shellfish Data From The North/Northwestern Shores of
Marrowstone Island
Collected By ATSDR in April 1998
Marrowstone Island, Washington
| Contaminant | Maximum Concentration (ppm)a |
Shellfish Species |
EPA Region III Risk-Based Concentration (ppm) |
|
Sample Location #1b |
|||
| Arsenic | 0.115c 0.012c |
HC NLN |
0.0021d |
| Benzo(e)pyrene | 0.0038 | NLN | 0.00043e |
| Benzo(g,h,i)perylene | 0.00278 | NLN | 54f |
| Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene | 0.0025 | NLN | 0.00043 |
| Indeno (1,2,3-cd)pyrene | 0.00349 | NLN | 0.0043 |
| Perylene | 0.00278 | NLN | 0.00043e |
|
Sample Location #2b |
|||
| Arsenic | 0.0162c 0.0226c |
NLN cockles |
0.0021d |
| Benzo(a)pyrene | 0.0029 | NLN | 0.00043 |
|
Sample Location #3b |
|||
| Arsenic | 0.0171c 0.0162c |
NLN cockles |
0.0021d |
| PCB 28 PCB 52 PCB 52 |
0.00044 0.00085 0.00149 |
NLN cockles NLN |
0.0016 |
|
Sample Location #4b |
|||
| Arsenic | 0.0154c 0.0193c |
NLN cockles |
0.0021d |
| PCB 52 | 0.00083 | NLN | 0.0016 |
|
Sample Location #5b |
|||
| Arsenic | 0.020c 0.004 |
NLN HC |
0.0021d |
| Benzo(a)pyrene | 0.0030 | NLN | 0.00043 |
|
Sample Location #6b |
|||
| Arsenic | 0.019c | cockles | 0.0021d |
| PCB 28 | 0.00047 | cockles | 0.0016 |
|
Sample Location #7b |
|||
| Arsenic | 0.035c | NLN | 0.0021d |
| Perylene | 0.0035 | NLN | 0.00043e |
|
Sample Location #8b |
|||
| Arsenic | 0.016c 0.012c |
NLN oyster |
0.0021d |
| Fluoranthene | 0.011 | oyster | 5.4 |
| Benzo(a)anthracene | 0.0023 | oyster | 0.0043 |
| Chrysene | 0.0047 | oyster | 0.43 |
| Pentachlorophenol | 0.0019 | oyster | 0.026 |
| PCB 118 PCB 153 PCB 138 |
0.00037 0.00102 0.00417 |
oyster oyster oyster |
0.0016 |
|
Sample Location #9b |
|||
| Arsenic | 0.0252c 0.0321c |
NLN cockles |
0.0021d |
|
Sample Location #10b |
|||
| Arsenic | 0.122c 0.0152c |
HC cockles |
0.0021d |
Note: Contaminants highlighted in bold were detected above Region III RBCs.
| a |
Data provided by ATSDR 1998b |
| b | Sample locations are depicted on Figure 8. |
| c | This value represents measured inorganic arsenic concentrations. In nature, arsenic exists in organic and inorganic forms. While organic forms are relatively non-toxic, inorganic forms can produce a variety of adverse health effects. Therefore, health assessors consider the inorganic component when evaluating the potential for health hazards. |
| d |
This RBC is for total arsenic (organic concentration + inorganic concentration). |
| e |
Because no RBCs are available for the PAHs benzo(e)perylene and perylene and these PAHs have not been classified for carcinogenicity, ATSDR used the benzo(a)pyrene RBC as a conservative (protective) screening value. |
| f | No RBC is available for benzo(g,h,i)perylene. Like naphthalene, benzo(g,h,i)perylene is a PAH that exerts noncarcinogenic effect. Therefore, ATSDR used naphthalene's RBC (54 ppm) as a screening value. |
ppm parts per million
RBC Risk-based concentration
HC Horse clams
NLN Native little neck clams
Table 6 was not available in electronic format for conversion to HTML at the time of preparation of this document. To obtain a hard copy of the document, please contact:
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
Division of Health Assessment and Consultation
Attn: Chief, Program Evaluation, Records, and Information Services Branch, E-56
1600 Clifton Road NE, Atlanta, Georgia 30333

Figure 3. Locations of Beaches in the Vicinity of Site 10

Figure 4. ATSDR's Exposure Evaluation Process

Figure 6. 1987 and 1988 Shellfish Sampling Locations

Figure 7. RI/FS Shellfish Sampling Locations

Figure 8. Shellfish Sampling Locations

Figure 11. Sediment Location #12

Figure 12. Shellfish Monitoring Locations
Appendix A. Evaluation of Potential Public Health Hazards Associated With the
16 Port Hadlock Sites
| Port Hadlock Site |
Site Description/Waste
Disposal History |
Investigational Results/ Environmental Monitoring Results |
Corrective Activities
and Current Status |
ATSDR's Evaluation
of Public Health Hazards |
| Site 10 (North End Landfill) |
The landfill was used from 1945 to the mid-1970s.
Materials reportedly disposed include zinc sludges, waste paints and thinners,
solvents, strippers, waste petroleum oil and lubricants, sandblasting paint
residues, waste oil, batteries, unidentified liquid waste, bomb ordnance
and incinerator ash, asbestos, submarine nets, polyurethane resins, and
residential trash.
Contaminants from Site 10 have been introduced to the marine environment via direct erosion, surface water runoff, and groundwater discharge.
|
Soil:
Metals, PCBs, and SVOCs detected. Groundwater: Metals, pesticides, and SVOCs detected. Sediments adjacent to Site 10: Results suggest a link to Site 10 contaminants. Shellfish adjacent to Site 10, along Boggy Spit, and along the north/northwestern shore of Marrowstone Island: Metals, ordnance compounds, pesticides, and SVOCs detected. |
Corrective Activities: A landfill cap and erosion protection measures were constructed in 1997. |
Soil:
Access to Site 10 was highly restricted and past exposures to the general
public, therefore, are unlikely. Exposures to workers did not pose a public
health hazard because exposures were infrequent and/or conducted with PPE.
Current and future exposures are prevented by the landfill cap. Groundwater: No drinking water wells are located in this area. Past and current exposures to groundwater, therefore, have not occurred. Wells will not be installed in the future because groundwater under Site 10 is not potable. Sediments: Exposures do not pose a public health hazard because (1) sediment concentrations are low, and (2) the exposures would be infrequent. Shellfish located adjacent to Site 10 and along Boggy Spit: Past exposures may have posed a public health hazard. A shellfish ban prevents current exposures. The ban will remain in place until future sampling indicates that the contaminants have been reduced to concentrations that do not pose a hazard. |
| PCB = Polychlorinated biphenyls SVOC = Semivolatile Organic Compound PPE = Personal Protective Equipment |
||||
| Site 11 (Walan Point) |
Site 11 was used for ordnance disposal in the late 1940s. | Soil:
2,4,6-Trinitrotoluene detected. Groundwater collected prior to corrective activities: Cadmium, trichloroethylene, and tetrachloroethylene detected. Groundwater collected after corrective activities: Some metals detected at concentrations that are slightly above health guidelines. |
Corrective Activities:
|
Soil: Access
has always been highly restricted and it will continue to be so in the future.
Past, current, and future exposures to the general public, therefore, are
unlikely. Past, current, and future exposures to workers do not pose a public
health hazard because visits are infrequent and/or conducted with PPE. Excavation
activities further reduced the hazards associated with potential current
and future exposures. Groundwater: No drinking water wells are located in this area. Past and current exposures to groundwater, therefore, have not occurred. It is unlikely that production wells will be installed in the future. |
| Site 12 (Griffin Street) |
Between the 1940s and 1950s, Site 12 was used for ordnance disposal. | Soil:
No contaminants were detected above regulatory requirements. (No contaminants
above Model Toxics Control Act [MTCA] criteria.) Groundwater collected prior to corrective activities: Arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, manganese, and nickel detected above health guidelines. Groundwater collected after corrective activities: Several metals detected. Only manganese detected above health guidelines. |
Corrective Activities:
|
Soil: Access
has always been highly restricted and it will continue to be so in the future.
Past, current, and future exposures to the general public, therefore, are
unlikely. Past, current, and future exposures to workers do not pose a public
health hazard because visits are infrequent and/or conducted with PPE. Excavation
activities further reduced the hazards associated with potential current
and future exposures. Groundwater: No drinking water wells are located in this area. Past and current exposures to groundwater, therefore, have not occurred. It is unlikely that production wells will be installed in the future. |
| PPE = Personal Protective Equipment | ||||
| Site 13 (Gas Station) | In 1992, a 3,000 gallon tank leaked (<500 gallons was lost). The tank was repaired, but failed a precision tightness test later in 1992. | Soil:
Soil contaminated with petroleum.
|
Corrective Activities:
Current Status: |
Soil: Access
has always been highly restricted and it will continue to be so in the future.
Past, current, and future exposures to the general public, therefore, are
unlikely. Past, current, and future exposures to workers do not pose a public
health hazard because visits are infrequent and/or conducted with PPE. Excavation
activities further reduced the hazards associated with potential current
and future exposures. Groundwater: No drinking water wells are located in this area. Past and current exposures to groundwater, therefore, have not occurred. It is unlikely that production wells will be installed in the future. |
| Site 15 (North Slab Storage) |
Between the 1940s and 1970s, Site 15 was used as a storage area for paints, solvents, and unknown wastes. | Soil Gas and Soil: No contaminants were detected above regulatory requirements. (No MTCA exceedences for SVOCs or VOCs). | Current Status:
|
No public health hazard is associated with this site. No contaminants were detected above regulatory requirements. |
| Site 16 | USTs were located in Site 16. | No record of sampling activities. | Corrective Activities:
Current Status: |
Soil: Access
has always been highly restricted and it will continue to be so in the future.
Past, current, and future exposures to the general public, therefore, are
unlikely. Past, current, and future exposures to workers do not pose a public
health hazard because visits are infrequent and/or conducted with PPE. Groundwater: No drinking water wells are located in this area. Past and current exposures to groundwater, therefore, have not occurred. It is unlikely that production wells will be installed in the future. |
| UST= Underground Storage Tank • VOC= Volatile
Organic Compound • MTCA= Model Toxics Control Act • SVOC= Semivolatile Organic
Compound PPE= Personal Protective Equipment |
||||
| Site 17 (Imhoff tanks) | Two 5,000 gallon Imhoff tanks were located in this area. | Gas: Field monitoring detected combustible gas at explosive concentrations within the buried tank. | Corrective Activities:
Current Status: |
Soil: Access
has always been highly restricted and it will continue to be so in the future.
Past, current, and future exposures to the general public, therefore, are
unlikely. Past, current, and future exposures to workers do not pose a public
health hazard because visits are infrequent and/or conducted with PPE. Groundwater: No drinking water wells are located in this area. Past and current exposures to groundwater, therefore, have not occurred. It is unlikely that production wells will be installed in the future. |
| Site 18 (Net Depot) |
Between the 1940s and 1950s, Site 18 was used as a building and repair area for submarine nets. | Soil Gas and Soil:
No contaminants were detected above regulatory requirements. (No MTCA exceedences
of SVOCs or VOCs.) Storm Sewer sediments collected prior to corrective activities: PAHs detected. Storm sewer sediments collected after corrective activities: Some VOCs and SVOCs detected, but at concentrations that do not pose a health hazard. Groundwater: Tetrachloroethylene detected. |
Corrective Activities:
Current Status: |
Soil: Access
has always been highly restricted and it will continue to be so in the future.
Past, current, and future exposures to the general public, therefore, are
unlikely. Past, current, and future exposures to workers do not pose a public
health hazard because visits are infrequent and/or conducted with PPE. Excavation
activities further reduced the hazards associated with potential current
and future exposures. Groundwater: No drinking water wells are located in this area. Past and current exposures to groundwater, therefore, have not occurred. It is unlikely that production wells will be installed in the future. |
| Site 19 (Former Public Works) |
Between the 1940s and 1970s, Site 19 was used to facilitate public-works-related activities. | Soil Gas and Soil: No contaminants were detected above regulatory requirements. (No MTCA exceedences of SVOCs or VOCs.) | Current Status:
|
No public health hazard is associated with this site. No contaminants were detected above regulatory requirements. |
| PPE= Personal Protective Equipment • VOC=
Volatile Organic Compound • MTCA= Model Toxics Control Act • SVOC= Semivolatile
Organic Compound PCB = Polychlorinated biphenyls • PAH = Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon |
||||
| Site 20 (Upper and Lower Bone-yards) |
Site 20 was used as storage areas (all uncovered) for primarily inert materials. One storage area was used for oil and solvent drums in the 1940s to the 1970s. | Soil Gas and Soil: No contaminants were detected above regulatory requirements. (No MTCA exceedences of SVOCs or VOCs.) | Current Status:
|
No public health hazard is associated with this site. No contaminants were detected above regulatory requirements. |
| Site 21 (Central Island disposal site) |
Site 21 was used as a disposal site for waste
oils, solvents, electrical equipment, and paint.
Backup water supply wells Nos. 1 and 2 could potentially be impacted by the activities at Site 21. |
Soil:
Metals detected. Groundwater under Site 21: Results from 1995 RI/FS: Metals, hexachlorobutadiene, BEHP, and benzene were detected. Results from 2-year monitoring program: BEHP, arsenic, and manganese detected above ATSDR comparison values. Groundwater in backup water supply wells Nos. 1 and 2: No sampling data are available to indicate the quality of the water between 1941 and 1945. |
Corrective Activities:
Current Status: |
Soil: Access
has always been highly restricted and it will continue to be so in the future.
Past, current, and future exposures to the general public, therefore, are
unlikely. Past, current, and future exposures to workers do not pose a public
health hazard because visits are infrequent and/or conducted with PPE. Groundwater (see applicable section in this PHA): Past exposures to potentially impacted groundwater could have occurred between 1941 and 1945 via consumption of groundwater from backup water supply wells Nos. 1 and 2. No groundwater data are available to determine whether these exposures posed a health hazard. Current exposures are not occurring. The Washington Department of Ecology, EPA, and the Navy are analyzing groundwater monitoring data collected from the area. If these agencies decide that contaminant concentrations pose a public health hazard, backup water supply wells Nos. 1 and 2 will be abandoned and deed restrictions will be implemented to prevent the installation of future wells. |
| Site 22 (Old Bomb Overhaul Area) |
Site 22 was used to recondition bombs from the 1940s to 1970s. | Soil: Subsurface arsenic concentrations exceeded MTCA Method B standards but was within Puget Sound levels. | Current Status:
|
No public health hazard is associated with this site. All contaminant concentrations were within regulatory requirements or within background concentrations. |
| PPE= Personal Protective Equipment • VOC=
Volatile Organic Compound • MTCA= Model Toxics Control • SVOC= Semivolatile
Organic Compound RI/FS= Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study • BEHP= Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate • EPA= U.S. Environmental Protection Agency • PHA= Petitioned Health Assessment |
||||
| Site 30 | Site 30 has contaminated soils. | Soil: Diesel and heavy oils detected. | Corrective Activities:
Current Status: |
Soil: Access
has always been highly restricted and it will continue to be so in the future.
Past, current, and future exposures to the general public, therefore, are
unlikely. Past, current, and future exposures to workers do not pose a public
health hazard because visits are infrequent and/or conducted with PPE. Excavation
activities further reduced the hazards associated with potential current
and future exposures. Groundwater: No drinking water wells are located in this area. Past and current exposures to groundwater, therefore, have not occurred. It is unlikely that production wells will be installed in the future. |
| Site 33 (Old Rifle Range) | Site 33 was previously used as a rifle range. | Soil:
Lead detected.
|
Corrective Activities:
Current Status: |
Soil: Access
has always been highly restricted and it will continue to be so in the future.
Past, current, and future exposures to the general public, therefore, are
unlikely. Past, current, and future exposures to workers do not pose a public
health hazard because visits are infrequent and/or conducted with PPE. Excavation
activities planned for the future will further reduce the hazards associated
with future exposures. Groundwater: No drinking water wells are located in this area. Past and current exposures to groundwater, therefore, have not occurred. It is unlikely that production wells will be installed in the future. |
| PPE= Personal Protective Equipment | ||||
| Site 34 Ordnance Burn/Ordnance Detonation
(OB/OD) Area and North Satellite Area |
From the late 1970s to approximately 1990, the OB/OD area was used to burn and detonate military energetic materials (i.e., ammunition and explosives). From the 1970s to 1988, operations at the OB/OD area were conducted in open, unlined pits. The OB/OD area is still used for occasional emergency burning and detonation of ordnance. The North Satellite area may have been used for testing ordnance and for training activities. | Soil: Lead, total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH), and PAHs were detected at high levels. Groundwater and Surface Water: Site 34 contaminants do not impact groundwater or surface water. | Corrective Activities:
|
Soil:
Access has always been highly restricted and it will continue to be so in
the future. Past, current, and future exposures to the general public, therefore,
are unlikely. Past, current, and future exposures to workers do not pose
a public health hazard because visits are infrequent and/or conducted with
PPE. Excavation activities further reduced the hazards associated with potential
current and future exposures. Groundwater and Surface Water: No public health hazards are associated with these media. Site 34 contaminants do not impact groundwater or surface water. |
| Site 35 | Site 35 consists of an old shed that was previously used to store solvents. The shed has a drain at the bottom. The drain is suspected to discharge directly to the ground. | Sampling activities are planned for the future. | Current Status:
|
Soil: Access
has always been highly restricted and it will continue to be so in the future.
Past, current, and future exposures to the general public, therefore, are
unlikely. Past, current, and future exposures to workers do not pose a public
health hazard because visits are infrequent and/or conducted with PPE. Groundwater: No drinking water wells are located in this area. Past and current exposures to groundwater, therefore, have not occurred. It is unlikely that production wells will be installed in the future. |
PAH=Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons • PPE= Personal Protective Equipment
Sources: ATSDR 1998a; EFA Northwest 1995, 1996a, 1996b, 1996c, 1996d, 1996e 1997a, 1997b; Ecology 1998; EPA, 1989, 1991, 1997, 1998; FDA 1993; Foster Wheeler 1996a, 1996b, 1997; Navy 1996; SCS Engineers 1987; Toy 1996;
URS 1995a, 1995b, 1996a, 1996b, 1996c, 1997; WDOH 1991
Appendix C: Public Comments On the Port Hadlock Public Health Assessment
The Port Hadlock Public Health Assessment was released for public comment on April 21, 1998. The comment period ended on June 1, 1998. Comments were received from community members.
Response: ATSDR noted the community member's observations within the main body of the text. (See Consumption of Contaminated Shellfish Along the North-Northwestern Shores of Marrowstone Island.) In the interest of public health, ATSDR performed additional shellfish sampling along Marrowstone Island to determine if there were levels of contaminants which could result in adverse health effects. Based on this investigation, current and future consumption of shellfish is not expected to pose health hazards.
Response: In April 1998, ATSDR collected shellfish samples from the Marrowstone Island shores (See Figure 8). These data were unavailable when this PHA was initially released. In August 1998, ATSDR's Exposure Investigation and Consultation Branch released the results. These results have been added to the PHA. (See Table 5 and Consumption of Contaminated Shellfish Along the North-Northwestern Shores of Marrowstone Island.) The results indicate that current and potential future shellfish exposures are unlikely to be associated with public health hazards.
Response: ATSDR included a discussion on this topic because the agency is mandated to address all community concerns. ATSDR read about this community concern in a Navy document (Navy, 1996). An EFA Northwest representative confirmed that the community had expressed concern about potential impacts to Marrowstone Island drinking water wells (EFA, Northwest, 1996c).
Response: ATSDR appreciates this input from the community.
Response: ATSDR modified Appendix A to reflect the resident's comments.
Response: Given the dynamic nature of waves, ATSDR cannot say, with absolute certainty, that Site 10 contaminants have not migrated to Port Townsend. It does appear to be highly unlikely, however. Shoreline analyses indicate that Site 10 sediments accumulate in Boggy Spit and the broad underwater sandbar located directly offshore (See Figure 10). It is unlikely, therefore, that Site 10 sediments are carried to Port Townsend. It is also unlikely that dissolved contaminants are carried to Port Townsend via waves. Long Spit, which consists of Sandy Spit and Rat Island (see Figure 10), is located immediately offshore of Port Hadlock's Site 10. For the most part, Long Spit serves as a wave barrier between Port Townsend Bay and Site 10 (Foster Wheeler 1996b). A small gap is located between Sandy Spit and Rat Island, however. If contaminants did travel to Port Townsend, they would be greatly diluted and likely not of health concern.
Response: The Department of Transportation has specific rules and regulations regarding the transport of hazardous materials. These rules and regulations are designed to prevent any releases of hazardous materials into the environment. ATSDR has forwarded this comment to the health assessors working on the Bangor Submarine Base.
Response: ATSDR evaluated the sediment data provided by this community member. No SVOCs, pesticides, or PCBs were detected. Nine metals, including arsenic and cadmium, were detected at low concentrations that are not likely associated with health effects if people were to contact these sediments. (ATSDR compared the contaminant concentrations against ATSDR's soil comparison values. Only a couple metals exceeded health guidelines. Soil comparison values were used because sediment comparison values do not exist. Using soil comparison values as a screen is a conservative (or protective) approach because ATSDR's soil comparison values are generated assuming that people will have regular exposure to soils for long periods of time. Exposures to sediment are typically much more sporadic than exposures to soil. At sediment location #12 it is unlikely that people regularly contact the submerged sediment.)
The community member's concern regarding shellfish contamination in this area is more difficult to address. No shellfish samples have been collected at sediment location #12 and not enough data are available to predict shellfish contaminant concentrations based on sediment data. (Determining the correlation between sediment concentrations and shellfish contaminant concentrations is complicated by many factors [e.g., bioaccumulation].) The Navy has recently collected samples from the Boggy Spit area as part of their shellfish monitoring program. These shellfish samples are in the proximity of sediment location #12 and believed to contain similar contaminant concentrations. ATSDR has reviewed the tentative results and plans to evaluate the Navy's data more closely when the Navy report is finalized and all data have received the necessary quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC). It would be premature to initiate additional sampling in the area until these recent Navy data are thoroughly evaluated.
In the absence of shellfish data for location #12, ATSDR carefully reviewed shellfish data that have been collected in the vicinity of location #12. Historical data for shellfish location #15 (see Figure 7) was provided in the RI/FS. Although several constituents were detected in the sample, arsenic was the only contaminant detected above Region III RBCs and its concentration--0.6 ppm--was not high enough to pose a health hazard. More recently, the Navy collected samples from the Boggy Spit area as part of their shellfish monitoring program. Figure 12 shows sampling locations. The locations do not correspond exactly with sediment location #12 (figure 11), but shellfish sample location #15 and #101 are in relative close proximity.
The Navy collected their samples in 1998 and analyzed them for SVOCs, pesticides, PCBs, explosive compounds, and metals. Preliminary results have been generated, but have not been evaluated for QA/QC. Although these data are unpublished, the Navy allowed ATSDR to review the results for locations # 15 and 101.
Because these results are preliminary, ATSDR hesitates to draw firm conclusions, but presents the most notable findings. Five SVOCs and four pesticides were detected, but at concentrations that were too low to pose health hazards. Total arsenic (13.9 -18.6 ppm) and cadmium (1.90-2.02 ppm) were detected above EPA's Region III RBCs. These arsenic and cadmium concentrations are about 5-30 times higher than those recorded in sample 15 during the RI/FS (arsenic: 0.6 ppm and cadmium: 0.37 ppm).It is unclear if the Navy's arsenic and cadmium concentrations are representative of actual shellfish conditions in the area. Again, the Navy's data are preliminary and have not been documented in a report. In addition, some uncertainties regarding the representativeness is raised by the fact that the data for Samish Bay, an area thought to be relatively pristine and uninfluenced by Port Hadlock activities, differs between the RI/FS and the Navy data. While the background arsenic concentration was reported as 0.19 ppm during the RI/FS, the concentration reported in the Navy's preliminary data was 14.8 ppm. ATSDR plans to evaluate the Navy's data more closely when the Navy report is finalized and all data have received the necessary QA/QC. It would be premature to initiate additional sampling in the area until these recent Navy data are thoroughly evaluated.
1. The maximum concentration for pentachlorophenol represents the reported detection limit. Although the laboratory reported a "nondetect" for this chemical, ATSDR included it in the evaluation because the detection limit concentration is above the EPA RBC.