PUBLIC HEALTH ASSESSMENT
HILL AIR FORCE BASE
HILL AIR FORCE BASE, DAVIS AND WEBER COUNTIES, UTAH

Figure 1. Demographic Statisitics

Figure 2. Areas of Groundwater Contamination and Active Remedial Actions

Figure 3. TCE Concentrations in Groundwater
| Location | 2000 Population | % Increase from 1990 | Caucasian (%) | African-American (%) | Hispanic (%) | Male (%) | Under age 10 (%) | Over age 65 (%) | Population Density (# per square mile) |
| Sunset | 5,000 | 1.5 | 86.9 | 1.6 | 10.5 | 50.4 | 19.3 | 12.3 | 3,523.3 |
| Clinton | 13,000 | 58.4 | 90.3 | 1.0 | 8.0 | 50 | 21.4 | 3.9 | 2,286.2 |
| Roy | 33,000 | 25.2 | 90.7 | 12 | 7.7 | 49.5 | 9.9 | 3.6 | 4,329.7 |
| Layton | 58,000 | 40 | 89.9 | 1.6 | 7.0 | 50.4 | 19.7 | 5.7 | 2,823.9 |
| Riverdale | 7,700 | 19.3 | 92.0 | 1.5 | 6.4 | 49.7 | 16.3 | 8.9 | 1,726.1 |
| Clearfield | 26,000 | 17.5 | 83.1 | 3.6 | 10.6 | 50.7 | 11.5 | 2.4 | 3,351.9 |
| South Weber | 4,000 | 48.4 | 95.2 | 0.5 | 4.0 | 50.4 | 18.7 | 3.9 | 920.9 |
APPENDIX B: ATSDR EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT PROCESS
What is meant by exposure?
ATSDR's public health assessments are driven by exposure or contact. Chemicals released into the environment have the potential to cause harmful health effects. Nevertheless, a release does not always result in exposure. People can only be exposed to a chemical if they come in contact with that chemical. If no one comes into contact with a chemical, then no exposure occurs, thus no health effects could occur.
The route of a chemical's movement is the pathway.
ATSDR identifies and evaluates exposure pathways by considering how people might
come into contact with a chemical. An exposure pathway could involve air, surface
water, groundwater, soil, dust, or even plants and animals. Exposure can occur
by breathing, eating, drinking, or by skin contact with a substance containing
the chemical.
How does ATSDR determine which exposure situations to evaluate?
ATSDR scientists evaluate base-specific conditions to determine whether people are being exposed to base-related contaminants. When evaluating exposure pathways, ATSDR identifies whether exposure to contaminated media (soil, water, air, waste, or biota) is possible through ingestion, dermal (skin) contact, or inhalation.
If exposure is possible, ATSDR scientists then consider whether contamination is present at levels that might affect public health. ATSDR selects chemicals for further evaluation by comparing them against health-based comparison values. Comparison values are developed by ATSDR from available scientific literature concerning exposure and health effects. Comparison values are derived for each of the media and reflect an estimated chemical concentration that is not expected to cause harmful health effects for a given chemical, assuming a standard daily contact rate (e.g., amount of water or soil consumed or amount of air breathed) and standard body weight.
Comparison values are not thresholds for harmful health effects. ATSDR comparison values represent chemical concentrations many times lower than levels at which no effects were observed in experimental animals or human epidemiologic studies. If chemical concentrations are above comparison values, ATSDR further analyzes exposure variables (e.g., duration and frequency) for health effects, including the toxicology of the chemical, other epidemiology studies, and the weight of evidence.
Some comparison values used by ATSDR scientists include ATSDR's environmental media evaluation guides (EMEG), reference dose media evaluation guides (RMEG), and cancer risk evaluation guides (CREG). EMEGs, RMEGs, and CREGs are non-enforceable, health-based comparison values developed by ATSDR for screening environmental contamination for further evaluation. Risk-based concentrations (RBCs) and soil screening levels (SSLs) are health-based comparison values developed by EPA Region III to screen areas not yet on the National Priorities List (NPL), respond rapidly to citizens inquiries, and spot-check formal baseline risk assessments.
More information about the ATSDR evaluation process can be found in ATSDR's Public Health Assessment Guidance Manual at http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/HAC/HAGM/ or by contacting ATSDR at 1-888-42-ATSDR. For reference, Appendix A defines some of the technical terms used in this public health assessment and a List of Acronyms is available after the Table of Contents.
If someone is exposed, will they get sick?
Exposure does not always result in harmful health effects. The type and severity of health effects that occur in an individual as the result of contact with a chemical depend on the exposure concentration (how much), the frequency and duration of exposure (how long), the route or pathway of exposure (breathing, eating, drinking, or skin contact), and the multiplicity of exposure (combination of chemicals). Once exposure occurs, characteristics such as age, sex, nutritional status, genetics, lifestyle, and health status of the exposed individual influence how that individual absorbs, distributes, metabolizes, and excretes the chemical. Taken together, these factors and characteristics determine the health effects that can occur as a result of exposure to a chemical in the environment.
Considerable uncertainty exists regarding the true level of exposure to environmental contamination. To account for that uncertainty and to protect public health, ATSDR scientists typically use high-end, worst-case exposure level estimates to determine whether harmful health effects are possible. These estimated exposure levels are usually much higher than the levels to which people are really exposed. If the exposure levels indicate harmful health effects are possible, a more detailed review of exposure, combined with scientific information from the medical, toxicologic, and epidemiologic literature about the health effects from exposure to harmful substances, is performed.
Exposure Assumptions and Methodology
To evaluate whether indoor air, surface water, or crop contaminants measured in Hill AFB and the surrounding communities are associated with any unhealthy effects, ATSDR derived exposure doses based on a hypothetical exposure of a resident to each contaminant. When deriving the doses, ATSDR used conservative assumptions about duration of exposure to contaminants and quantity of contaminated indoor air, crops, or surface water inhaled or ingested each day. Assumptions used to estimate exposure doses for indoor air inhalation, surface water dermal contact, surface water ingestion, and ingestion of contaminated crops are reviewed below.
Indoor Air Exposure Dose Estimation: Because some uncertainty exists about how long the contaminants have been in the homes, ATSDR conservatively assumed that an adult was exposed to indoor air contaminants for 30 years. In all likelihood, families stationed at Hill AFB and those living in the surrounding communities have lived in these homes for less than 30 years. We also assumed that the exposure is constant (24 hours a day for 365 days over the 30 year period). We next assumed that a person exposed to the contaminated air was an adult, inhaling 20 cubic meters of air per day and weighing 70 kilograms (157 pounds). These assumptions create a very conservative estimate of exposure, most likely higher than a exposure dose for an average individual in the community. Furthermore, ATSDR assumed that residents living in the housing units were exposed to the highest level of contamination in the air; therefore, ATSDR used the highest (or maximum) measured concentrations of contaminants in indoor air. This is another conservation assumption because we would not expect people to be exposed to the highest concentration all the time. Together, these conservative estimates allow ATSDR to safely evaluate the likelihood, if any, that indoor air contaminants in the home could cause harm to its residents.
Surface Water Dermal Contact Exposure Dose Estimation: In order to calculate dermal exposure doses ATSDR assumed that both adults and children would be touching the water. The average body weight for an adult and a child are 70 kilograms and 16 kilograms, respectively. We next assumed that the only body parts touching the water were hands and legs, providing a surface area of 3,670 cm2 for children and 6,320 cm2 for adults. We further assumed that the exposure time for dermal contact was 1 hour per day, 365 days per year. The maximum concentration for each detected chemical was used in the calculations. Each of these assumptions is very conservative, resulting in an exposure dose greater than what would truly be expected in this situation.
Surface Water Ingestion Exposure Dose Estimation To calculate ingestion exposure doses, ATSDR assumed that both adults and children would be ingesting the water. The average body weight for an adult and a child are 70 kilograms and 16 kilograms, respectively. We further assumed that the exposure time was 1 hour per day for 365 days per year, and that the water ingestion rate was 0.05 liters per hour for both children and adults. The maximum concentration for each detected chemical was used in the calculations. Each of these assumptions is very conservative, resulting in an exposure dose greater than what would truly be expected in this situation.
Crop Ingestion Exposure Dose Estimation Exposure doses were calculated for ingestion of TCE through fruit and vegetables. First, we assumed that the average body weight for an adult is 70 kilograms. We further assumed an adult consumes 35 grams of each type of fruit per day and that all fruit eaten in these communities are homegrown. The maximum detected concentration of TCE for eight different types of fruit was used in our exposure dose calculations. Each of these assumptions is very conservative, resulting in an exposure dose greater than what would truly be expected in this situation. We calculated exposure doses for consumption of peaches, plums, walnuts, apples, apricots, nectarines, plums, and grapes. We then added the exposure doses for all the fruits.
ATSDR defines an exposure pathway as having five parts:
When all five parts of an exposure pathway are present, it is called a Completed Exposure Pathway. Each of these five terms is defined in this Glossary.
APPENDIX D: JOHNSON AND ETTINGER INDOOR AIR MODEL
VOC Air Modeling
Indoor air sampling was limited in communities around Hill AFB.
ATSDR applied the Johnson and Ettinger (1991) model to estimate indoor air concentrations
in those areas not sampled. Groundwater contamination surrounding Hill AFB only
involves the shallow aquifer at depths less than 150 feet. The majority of contaminants
in these groundwater plumes are volatile organic compounds that have the ability
to volatilize into vapor. This vapor can, in turn, move from the groundwater,
through soil, and eventually seep into basements and affect the indoor air.
Modeling Approach
Rather than simulating the many complex factors that affect how
toxic chemicals disperse in air, ATSDR evaluated a simple and overestimated
exposure situation: What would be the estimated indoor air concentration
of a VOC contaminant for a house located directly above a groundwater plume
with a VOC concentration equal to the highest level measured at Hill AFB? Though
obviously unrealistic, this scenario provides an extreme upper bound estimate
of what the actual ambient air concentrations might have been. We used the Johnson
and Ettinger indoor air model and Hill AFB environmental data to estimate indoor
air concentrations in residences in the Patriot Hills Housing Area, Sunset,
Clinton, Roy, Layton, Clearfield, Riverdale, and South Weber.
Johnson and Ettinger Model (1991)
In September 1988, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
developed the Johnson and Ettinger Model to estimate indoor air concentrations
and associated health hazards from subsurface vapor intrusion into buildings.
This model is a screening-level model that incorporates mechanisms
for estimating the transport of contaminated vapors from either subsurface soils
or groundwater into the spaces directly above the source of contamination (Environmental
Quality Management, Inc. 2000). Soil properties, chemical properties of the
contaminant, and structural properties of the building are entered into the
model. When an initial concentration is entered into the model an incremental
risk is produced. This risk, in turn, can be converted into an air concentration.
The Johnson and Ettinger model is a first-tier screening tool that is based on several assumptions. As a result it has limitations.
All but the most sensitive parameters have been set to either an upper bound value or the median value. As a result, the model is very conservative when predicting indoor air concentrations.
For predicting indoor air concentrations in homes at or near Hill AFB, ATSDR entered the maximum groundwater and soil concentrations for each VOC into the Johnson and Ettinger model. Incremental risks obtained for each compound for vapor intrusion into indoor air were then converted into predicted concentrations and compared to a reference value for that compound. Based on this strategy, ATSDR found that none of the predicted incremental risks or air concentrations exceeded reference values and thus were not at levels that are known to cause adverse health effects.
Modeling Results
Table D-1 lists the estimated indoor air concentrations that ATSDR predicted for the VOCs considered in this analysis. We emphasize that these are conservative estimates because our initial modeling application assumed that the maximum concentration of VOCs detected in the plume entered the home.
Potential trichloroethene exposures. As Table D-1 shows, the estimate of the indoor air concentrations of TCE was generally lower than the lowest observed adverse effect level (LOAEL: 50,000 ppb). As a result, ATSDR can conclude that indoor air concentrations of TCE in the homes near plumes at Hill AFB do not reach unhealthy levels as a result of the operations at Hill AFB.
Potential benzene exposures. As Table D-1 shows, the estimate of the indoor air concentrations of benzene was far lower than the lowest observed adverse effect level (LOAEL: 780 ppb). As a result, ATSDR can conclude that indoor air concentrations of benzene in any of the homes near plumes at Hill AFB do not reach unhealthy levels as a result of the operations at Hill AFB.
Potential tetrachloroethylene exposures. As Table D-1 shows, there were three estimates of indoor air concentrations of PCE. All were lower than the NOAEL (200 ppb). As a result, ATSDR can conclude that indoor air concentrations of PCE in any of the homes near plumes at Hill AFB do not reach unhealthy levels as a result of the operations at Hill AFB.
Potential 1,2-dichloroethane exposures. As Table D-1 shows, the estimates of the indoor air concentrations of DCA were far lower than the no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL: 50,000 ppb). As a result, ATSDR can conclude that indoor air concentrations of DCA in any of the homes near plumes at Hill AFB do not reach unhealthy levels as a result of the operations at Hill AFB.
Potential 1,1-dichloroethene exposures. As Table D-1 shows, the estimates of the indoor air concentrations of 1,1-DCE were far lower than the no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL: 25,000 ppb). As a result, ATSDR can conclude that indoor air concentrations of 1,1-DCE in any of the homes near plumes at Hill AFB do not reach unhealthy levels as a result of the operations at Hill AFB.
Potential carbon tetrachloride exposures. As Table D-1 shows, the estimates of the indoor air concentrations of carbon tetrachloride were far lower than the no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL: 5,000 ppb). As a result, ATSDR can conclude that indoor air concentrations of carbon tetrachloride in any of the homes near plumes at Hill AFB do not reach unhealthy levels as a result of the operations at Hill AFB.
Potential vinyl chloride exposures. As Table D-1 shows, the estimates of the indoor air concentrations of vinyl chloride were far lower than the lowest observed adverse effect level (LOAEL: 10,000 ppb). As a result, ATSDR can conclude that indoor air concentrations of vinyl chloride in any of the homes near plumes at Hill AFB do not reach unhealthy levels as a result of the operations at Hill AFB.
Potential methylene chloride exposures. As Table D-1 shows, the estimates of the indoor air concentrations of methylene chloride were far lower than the no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL: 200,000 ppb). As a result, ATSDR can conclude that indoor air concentrations of methylene chloride in any of the homes near plumes at Hill AFB do not reach unhealthy levels as a result of the operations at Hill AFB.
Summary of ATSDR's Findings
ATSDR analyzed available environmental sampling data for Hill AFB. This analysis found that the chemicals detected in the groundwater contamination plumes in these areas never reached concentrations at off-base locations at levels thought to be associated with adverse health effects, even when considering extremely conservative exposure assumptions. Since the maximum concentration of groundwater contamination does not appear to pose a public health hazard, current groundwater concentrations (thought to be lower than in the past due to remediation efforts), also are not expected to pose past, present, or future public health hazards to off-base residents.
The Johnson and Ettinger Model predicts that the indoor air of existing homes above even the most contaminated plumes will not reach concentrations likely to cause adverse health effects due to the groundwater contamination. The measured values for all of the contaminants indicate that the indoor air concentration from all sources will not reach concentrations that are known to cause adverse health effects. In addition, the majority of the measured indoor air concentrations are within the range measured in offices and homes across the country, suggesting that the groundwater plumes do not adversely affect the indoor air.
| Community | VOC | Maximum Groundwater Concentration (ppb) | Incremental Risk (unitless) | Model Concentration (ppb) | LOAEL (ppb) | NOAEL (ppb) |
| Patriot Hills Housing Area | Benzene | 550 | 6.1E-07 | 57 | 780 | |
| Sunset | Trichloroethene | 870 | 2.3E-07 | 59 | 50,000 | |
| Chloroform | 45 | 1.3E-07 | 33 | 50,000 | ||
| Tetrachloroethene | ND | 0 | 0 | 200 | ||
| 1,1-Dichloroethene | 27 | 2.6E-07 | 3 | 25,000 | ||
| Carbon Tetrachloride | 16 | 4.0E-08 | 1 | 5,000 | ||
| Vinyl Chloride | 56 | 5.6E-08 | 6 | 10,000 | ||
| Clinton | Trichloroethene | 120 | 3.1E-08 | 43 | 50,000 | |
| Tetrachloroethene | 1,190 | 1.0E-07 | 59 | 200 | ||
| 1,1-Dichloroethene | ND | 0 | 0 | 25,000 | ||
| Carbon Tetrachloride | 50 | 1.2E-07 | 3 | 5,000 | ||
| Roy | Trichloroethene | 1,300 | 3.4E-07 | 87 | 50,000 | |
| Layton | Trichloroethene | 700 | 1.8E-07 | 46 | 50,000 | |
| 1,2-Dichloroethane | 697 | 1.1E-06 | 24 | 50,000 | ||
| 1,1-Dichloroethene | 30,000 | 2.9E-04 | 3,420 | 25,000 | ||
| Vinyl Chloride | 11 | 1.1E-08 | 2 | 10,000 | ||
| Tetrachloroethene | 9.8 | 8.4E-10 | 0.5 | 200 | ||
| Riverdale | Trichloroethene | 15,000 | 3.9E-06 | 998 | 50,000 | |
| Methylene Chloride | 7 | 3.8E-10 | 0.5 | 200,000 | ||
| Benzene | 53 | 5.9E-08 | 6 | 780 | ||
| South Weber | Trichloroethene | 6,300 | 1.6E-06 | 410 | 50,000 |