PRELIMINARY PUBLIC HEALTH ASSESSMENT
ARCTIC SURPLUS
FAIRBANKS, FAIRBANKS NORTH STAR COUNTY, ALASKA
Located in the southeast quadrant of Fairbanks, Alaska, the Arctic Surplus National Priorities List (NPL) site consists of salvaged material and scrap which have accumulated for more than 40 years. Operations at the site (1946 to 1976) have resulted in localized soil contamination with chlordane, polychlorinated biphenyls, dioxin/furan homologues (compounds of similar structure), and lead. Some surface soil lead contamination has been detected just beyond the site fence line. In addition, friable asbestos is found on-site. Remediation of the site has removed most of the localized on-site soil contamination and asbestos.
Seven of nine on-site and three of eight off-site wells had detectable levels of lead (5-579 ppb). One of the off-site wells is a residential well and it had 5 ppb lead. Six of the nine on-site and four of the eight off-site wells had detectable levels of arsenic (5-87 ppb). Three of the off-site wells are residential and had 8-9 ppb arsenic. Arsenic is found in groundwater throughout the Fairbanks region and is not related to the Arctic Surplus NPL site.
The two independent compiled lists of individuals reported to have site-related adverse health effects indicate a possible cluster of adverse health outcomes in the area around Arctic Surplus. The existing health outcome databases did not permit evaluation of this possible cluster in this public health assessment.
The Arctic Surplus site is considered an public health hazard because of the potential for exposure to lead through ingestion of water from residential wells, and because of the past exposures of workers to asbestos, lead, and PCB's on-site.
ATSDR determined that a community health investigation is needed to help address community concerns about cancer and other health outcomes. ATSDR also determined that blood lead testing of residents of the area near Arctic Surplus be conducted because of the clear potential that exposure to lead above 15 ppb in drinking water is occurring.
In addition, ATSDR determined that community and health professions education is indicated. The community health education should include information on how to minimize exposures to lead and the known health effects of the substances present. The health professions education should focus on the effects of lead, asbestos, and arsenic.
A. Site Description and History
The Arctic Surplus (a.k.a. Arctic Salvage, McPeak Salvage) National Priorities List (NPL) site is located in the southeast quadrant of Fairbanks, Alaska (See Appendix C, Figure I). It is a 22-acre parcel of land northeast of the intersection of Badger Road and the Old Richardson Highway, 6 miles southeast of Fairbanks. The site consists of salvaged material and scrap which have accumulated for more than 40 years. A maze of unimproved roadways wind through the property. Vegetation, including trees 20 to 25 feet tall, has grown around and through scrap metal and debris on much of the site, primarily the eastern portion.
The site was owned by the U.S. Department of Defense from 1944 through 1958 and was used as a disposal site for equipment and abandoned materials. Some waste material may have been placed in an on-site pit (40 feet x 40 feet x 30 feet). In 1958, the site was sold to a private citizen. Salvage yard operations were conducted at the site until 1976. Since 1976, the property has changed ownership twice with very little site activity. This site is currently owned by three private parties and the Alaska Railroad.
During the period of private party operation (1958-1976), equipment and materials were brought on-site for salvage and eventual resale. Much of this material remains accumulated on-site. The majority of equipment and materials that remain on-site appear to be of military origin. Some of the most notable materials brought on-site are an incinerator in which electrical transformer fluids and transformer copper windings were burned; batteries which were split open and drained to recover the lead plates; hundreds of 55-gallon drums and other containers; and asbestos rolls, bricks, pipe wrapping, and insulation. A second incinerator is located on-site and was allegedly used to melt aluminum. Appendix C, Figure II delineates the locations of the notable items.
In 1987 and 1988, the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) investigated the conditions on-site (1-3). Because of the concern over chemicals that may have been contained in the drums, ADEC notified the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Based on the assessment conducted by ADEC and EPA's Technical Assistance Team, EPA determined that the site posed hazards to public health and the environment. In September 1989, EPA secured the site with a fence and removed 22,200 pounds of asbestos. During the summer of 1990, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) stabilized and removed 75 gallons of chlordane, excavated and removed the dioxin contaminated ash and soil near the incinerators, excavated and removed the contaminated soil at the battery cracking areas, and stabilized and removed various electrical transformers and chemical drums found on-site.
In 1991, EPA conducted surveys for alleged buried hazardous wastes and to delineate areas of high lead and PCB contamination ("hot spots") (4). The identified hot spots were capped rather than removed.
The EPA proposed the inclusion of Arctic Surplus on the NPL in October 1989 (Update 10). The NPL is a list of sites which require further investigation and possible long-term cleanup.
Mr. Sven E. Rodenbeck and Mr. Joel D. Mulder from the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) conducted a site visit on June 7-8, 1990. During the site visit, ATSDR staff met with representatives of the Alaska Department of Health, ADEC, and EPA.
Another site visit was made to follow-up on concerns expressed during the public comment period for the public health assessment. On December 4, 1991, Drs. Leticia Arredondo and John Crellin, and Mr. Greg Thomas of ATSDR toured the residential areas near the site, searched the site's public repository, and held two public availability meetings.
The results of these site visits are described in the appropriate portions of this public health assessment.
C. Demographics, Land Use, and Natural Resource Use
Arctic Surplus is bound to the north by residential properties of the Clear Creek Estate Subdivision, and to the south by the Alaska Railroad and the Old Richardson Highway. Badger Road and Fort Wainwright are located immediately west of the site. A gravel pit operation is immediately east of the Arctic Surplus. Appendix C, Figure III delineates the property boundaries near the site.
No municipal water supply is available for the approximately 2,500 residents within three miles of the site. It is believed that every home obtains potable drinking water from residential wells which average approximately 30 feet in depth. The 11,667 individuals residing at Fort Wainwright obtain potable drinking water from the Fort's central water distribution system. The two Fort Wainwright wells, 180 and 190 feet deep, are located two miles northwest of the site.
One of the present landowners resides on-site. His home is located in the northwest corner of the site. The land owner is the only occupant of the building and he uses bottled water for drinking and cooking. Domestic water (bathing and cleaning) is obtained from a 30-foot deep two inch well (see Appendix C, Figure II).
An additional well is located on-site. This well is six inches in diameter and is not used for domestic purposes.
Two ponds are located on the Arctic Surplus property (See Appendix C, Figure II). The nearest off-site surface water, Clear Creek, is approximately 1/2 miles to the north.
No state or local health outcome data (e.g., cancer registry) are available for the area surrounding the Arctic Surplus NPL site.
III. COMMUNITY HEALTH CONCERNS
Community health concerns were identified through contact with federal, state, and local officials; letters and calls from local residents; and public availability meetings.
Drs. Arredondo and Crellin, and Mr. Thomas of ATSDR held two public availability meetings at the Hutchinson Career Center in Fairbanks, AK from 3-5:30 and 7-9:00 pm. Community health concerns were solicited and the health assessment process explained. Total attendance at both meetings was about 20.
Nearly all the participants in the meetings expressed concern about the potential for site-related health effects and actions taken by EPA. One citizen provided a list of about 100 individuals with health effects possibly related to the area around Arctic. Dr. Arredondo obtained additional information about the people on this list on the morning of December 5. Another individual had compiled similar information about four years ago and promised to provide ATSDR with a copy.
The community health concerns identified were:
These concerns will be discussed in the Community Health Concerns Evaluation portion of the Public Health Implications section.
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL CONTAMINATION AND OTHER HAZARDS
In conducting an ATSDR Public Health Assessment, the health assessors identify and review all available environmental contamination data for a site. The on- and off-site portions of this section describe the sampling that has been done and identify contaminants of concern. The quality of the environmental data is discussed in the Quality Assurance and Quality Control subsection. Physical and other hazards not related to toxic substances, if any, are described in the Physical and Other Hazards subsection. This introductory portion discusses the process for selecting contaminants of concern and Toxic Chemical Release Inventory (TRI) data.
ATSDR selects contaminants for further evaluation based upon the following factors:
Identification of a contaminant of concern in the On-site and Off-site Contamination subsections does not mean that exposure will result in adverse health effects, only that additional evaluation is necessary. The public health significance, if any, of exposure to the contaminants of concern is evaluated in subsequent sections of the public health assessment.
Comparison values for public health assessment are contaminant concentrations in specific media that are used to select contaminants for further evaluation. These values include Environmental Media Evaluation Guides (EMEGs), Cancer Risk Evaluation Guides (CREGs), and other relevant guidelines. CREGs are estimated contaminant concentrations based on a one excess cancer in a million persons exposed over a lifetime. CREGs are calculated from EPA's cancer slope factors. EPA's maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG) is a drinking water health goal. EPA believes that the MCLG represents a level that no known or anticipated adverse effect on the health of persons should occur which allows an adequate margin of safety. Proposed Maximum Contaminant Level Goals (PMCLGs) are MCLGs that are being proposed. Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) represent contaminant concentrations that EPA deems protective of public health (considering the availability and economics of water treatment technology) over a lifetime (70 years) at an exposure rate of 2 liters water per day. While MCLs are regulatory concentrations, PMCLGs and MCLGs are not. EPA's Reference Dose (Rfd) and Reference Concentration (Rfc) are estimates of the daily exposure to a contaminant via the ingestion (Rfd) or inhalation (Rfc) routes that is unlikely to cause adverse health effects.
In order to identify other possible facilities that could contribute to the groundwater and air contamination within the area of concern, ATSDR searched the 1987 and 1988 Toxic Chemical Release Inventory (TRI). TRI was developed by EPA from the chemical release (air, water, and soil) information provided by certain industries. No information on site-related toxic chemical releases in Fairbanks or the 99705 zip code area were reported to EPA in 1987 and 1988.
Initial site assessments have been conducted by ADEC and EPA during August through November, 1988, and May through June, 1989, respectively (1-3). Additional sampling was done as part of removal actions in 1990 and 1991 (4-6). Analyses of the samples taken at Arctic Surplus NPL site indicate various localized areas of contamination. Tables 1-3 in Appendix A present the contaminants of concern found on-site.
Chlordane was detected only in soil under a leaking chlordane container and on an adjacent roadway. Elevated surface soil levels of lead were found at the battery cracking and battery casing storage areas (1-3). During the summer of 1990, the Corps excavated and removed surface soils with the higher levels of contamination (6). Analysis of soil samples taken after the removal indicate residual contamination at these areas requiring additional removal or treatment.
Samples of the ash from incinerator number one were checked for the presence of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB) and dioxin/furan homologues. As previously mentioned, incinerator number one was allegedly used to burn transformer oil. Analysis of the ash samples indicate that transformer oil was burned in incinerator number one because PCB and dioxin/furan homologues were detected in the ash (see Table 1, Appendix A) (1-3). Analyses of surface soil samples taken near the on-site residence found PCB up to 196,000 parts per billion (ppb)(3). The ash, soil, and debris were excavated and stored on-site by the Corps.
The dioxin/furan homologues are reported as total estimated tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin toxic equivalence factors. Because the different forms of dioxin and furans have differing toxicity, the laboratory results have been adjusted to reflect the equivalent concentration of 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (2,3,7,8-TCDD) needed to correspond to the concentration of dioxin and furans found on-site. In other words, the adjusted total of all the dioxin/furan homologues detected in the ash is the same as if only 2,3,7,8-TCDD was detected.
Although 22,200 pounds of asbestos were removed by EPA, asbestos remains on the property (2). However, the remaining asbestos is either buried under or enclosed by the metal salvage debris still on-site. Visible asbestos on metal salvage debris (i.e., boilers, pipes, etc.) was "locked down" with red-dyed encapsulation subsequent to the removal of asbestos (3).
Analytical results of the groundwater samples taken from the two preexisting wells on-site found lead and arsenic at levels of public health concern (see Table 1, Appendix A) (1). Information provided to ATSDR by EPA indicates that arsenic is found in groundwater throughout the Fairbanks region and is not related to the Arctic Surplus NPL site. (Memorandum, from John Sainsbury, EPA, to Joel Mulder, ATSDR, January 9, 1991.) Note: Because these wells are intended for domestic use (e.g., drinking and bathing), analytical results from unfiltered samples are used to determine whether contaminants are present. Unfiltered groundwater samples are more indicative of what contaminants maybe present in residential wells.
Seven onsite monitoring wells were installed by the Corps in July 1990 (5) (see Figure III of Appendix C). None of the wells sampled in July 1990 had detectable levels of lead and only one (MW-3) had a detectable level of arsenic (46 ppb). However, sampling in December identified detectable levels of lead in five and of arsenic in four of the seven wells (Table 3, Appendix A). No organic compounds were detected in the wells (5).
Laboratory analysis of surface water samples taken from the two on-site ponds do not show any organic or inorganic contamination of public health concern (2).
The 1,928 drums and 750 five-gallon cans of chemicals found on-site have been inventoried as to content. The most prevalent content categories are waste oil, unknown, antifreeze, fuel oil, alcohol, dry cleaning fluid, de-icer, and alkaline cleaning compound. The inventory concentrated primarily on the 55-gallon drums, however other containers and features were also noted. Only drums that appeared to have contents were counted during the survey (2). Analysis of four drum contents found PCB (Aroclor 1260), 7,200,000 ppb to 240,000,000 ppb. The contents of the inventoried drums were removed from the site during the summer of 1990 (6).
Two off-site residential wells were sampled in 1988 (Tract A & TL-2107 [1]), and four in 1989 (TL 18 - TL 21 [3]), and six in 1990 (TL 18 - TL 21, TL 2107 & 2109 [5]). Four other off-site wells were sampled in 1990 (5). Two were drinking water wells on the military reservation (buildings 5008 and 5001) and two were monitoring wells (MW-1 & 4) drilled in July 1990. See Figure III in Appendix C for the location of these off-site wells.
No Arctic Surplus-related organic contamination was shown to be present in any of the wells (1,3,5). Levels of inorganics above the detection limits were found only in the 1990 testing (1,3,5). However, the detection limits for lead and arsenic were 25 ppb in 1989, rather than the more appropriate 5 ppb (3). The results from the 1990 testing of off-site wells are in Table 4 of Appendix A. Three of eight off-site wells sampled had detectable levels of lead (MW 1-16 ppb, MW 4-10 ppb, TL 21-5 ppb) and five had detectable levels of arsenic (MW 1-87 ppb, MW 4-16 ppb, TL 18-8 ppb, TL 19-9 ppb, and TL 20-9 ppb). The wells labeled TL (tax lot) are residential wells.
Limited surface soil sampling was conducted off-site along the western boundary of the site. This sampling was specific for lead and PCBs. Lead was found at 13,000 ppb to 33,273,000 ppb. PCBs were not detected above levels of public health concern. (Letter, from William L. Carberry, Ecology and Environment, Inc., to Kathy Talber, Alaska Department of Transportation, November 8, 1990.)
C. Quality Assurance and Quality Control
ATSDR was provided with quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) information concerning analytical data for the Arctic Surplus NPL site. The information tends to indicate appropriate QA/QC was performed. The conclusions presented in this public health assessment are based in part on the data derived from the environmental samples of 1988 and 1989. The validity of these conclusions is therefore dependent on the accuracy and reliability of the data provided.
Various abandoned pieces of equipment and other materials are scattered through out the site. Individuals entering the site could be injured when climbing onto or over this material. Access to the site is restricted by a six foot fence.
A. Environmental Pathways (Fate and Transport)
Past activities at Arctic Surplus NPL site have resulted in localized soil contamination (e.g., battery cracking and incinerator ash disposal). Analysis conducted during the site investigations indicate the highest soil contamination (lead, PCBs, and dioxin/furan homologues) is in the surface soils. Additional investigations are needed to determine if other areas of soil contamination are on-site.
The site is underlain with alluvial deposits (sand, gravel, and gray silt) and the groundwater is only ten feet below the surface. Therefore, the surface soil contamination could easily migrate into the groundwater. This is particularly true for lead associated with the former battery cracking operation. Because battery acid was reportedly poured directly onto the ground and acid in batteries transforms inorganic lead into the most water soluble forms (making it easier for lead to dissolve in water), the lead from the former battery cracking operations could have easily migrated into the groundwater. PCB's, chlordane, and dioxin/furan homologues are less likely to migrate because they do not readily dissolve in water.
The water table aquifer (800 feet thick) beneath the site is the main source of potable water for the local residences and Fort Wainwright. The primary source of recharge for the aquifer is the Tanana River. The aquifer generally flows towards the northwest.
The detection of lead in two preexisting, five of seven on-site monitoring, one of seven off-site residential, none of two military domestic, and both off-site monitoring wells indicates that lead has migrated into the groundwater. Additional investigations are needed to properly delineate the total extent of groundwater contamination.
Arsenic was detected in the groundwater at levels of public health concern. Elevated levels of arsenic are found throughout the Fairbanks area and are not related to the Arctic Surplus NPL site. (Memorandum, from John Sainsbury, EPA, to Joel Mulder, ATSDR, January 9, 1991.)
In addition to possibly migrating into the water table aquifer, the surface soil contamination (chlordane, PCBs, dioxin/furan homologues, lead, and asbestos) may have been transported off-site as dust or particulate matter. This could occur whenever the surface soils are disturbed by on-site activities or during high wind conditions. Because the ash piles and asbestos were not covered with vegetation or any other type of barrier, off-site transport of ash and asbestos could potentially have occurred whenever the ground was not covered with snow (generally May through September). The prevailing winds for the Fairbanks area come from the south and southwest.
When in operation, the on-site incinerators could have discharged dioxin/furan homologues into the air. This would be particularly true for the incinerator which is alleged to have burned transformer fluids. Because dioxin/furan homologues were found in the ash from incinerator number one, it is likely that dioxin/furan homologues were discharged to the air during operations. Without stack testing, it is not possible to determine the quantity of dioxin/furan homologues discharged.
Lead can bioaccumulate in plants (7). However, no foodstuff is grown on-site. If a sufficient amount of lead were released to the air and deposited on adjoining properties, the contaminants could possibly bioaccumulate in foodstuffs grown on nearby residential gardens. Because only limited off-site soil sampling has be conducted, it is not possible to adequately address this possible contaminant transport mechanism. PCB's and dioxin/furan homologues are not known to bioaccumulate in plants (8,9).
Although the site is relatively flat (less than 1 percent grade), surface soil contaminants could have been transported off-site by surface water runoff (e.g., heavy rain falls or snow melt). On- and off-site surface soil sampling in drainage areas should be conducted in the future in order to evaluate this possibility.
The two on-site ponds have been sampled and analytical results did not find any organic or inorganic contamination in the surface water. However, additional surface water and sediment sampling should be conducted in order to confirm these preliminary findings.
On the basis of the environmental pathways evaluation, human exposure to significant levels of hazardous substances could have occurred by contact with contaminated groundwater and surface soils. In addition, occupational exposures to airborne contaminants may have occurred when the facility was operational. Each human exposure pathway is discussed in detail below.
The current primary human exposure pathway of concern at the Arctic Surplus NPL site is the ingestion of groundwater contaminated with lead. Preliminary groundwater studies have identified one off-site residential and two monitoring wells with 5 - 16 ppb of lead. In addition, two preexisting and five of seven monitoring wells onsite are contaminated with concentrations of lead up to 579 ppb. The preexisting wells are not normally used for drinking water but are used for domestic uses (e.g., bathing). Clearly, the off-site residential wells towards the northwest, the direction of groundwater movement, could become contaminated in the future. The discovery of low levels of lead (5 ppb) in the residential on TL 21 confirms the potential for finding other contaminated residential wells.
Humans may be ingesting groundwater contaminated with arsenic. Elevated levels of arsenic are found throughout the Fairbanks area and are not related to the Arctic Surplus NPL site.
Significant human exposures may have occurred to on-site workers in the past. The scrap yard workers could have come in contact (inhalation, ingestion, and dermal) with asbestos, lead, PCBs, and other compounds managed at the facility. The extent of exposure would depend upon the type of safety equipment used (e.g., respirators) by the workers. In addition, on-site workers could have come in contact (inhalation, ingestion, and dermal) with dioxin/furan homologues whenever the number one incinerator was in use or during ash removal operations.
Trespassers could have also come in contact with the contaminants on-site. However, this contact was probably not significant because the exposure would be of short duration. Access to the site has been restricted since September 1989 by a locked six foot chain link fence.
Other possible human exposure pathways are dermal contact, inhalation, and ingestion of contaminants that may have migrated onto off-site surface soil (lead, PCBs, asbestos, and dioxin/furan homologues) and bioaccumulated lead in foodstuffs grown in gardens adjacent to the site. The contaminants could have migrated off-site as contaminated dust and incinerator particulates. This exposure pathway can not be evaluated at this time because off-site surface soil sampling has not been conducted.
VI. PUBLIC HEALTH IMPLICATIONS
As discussed in the preceding section, one residential well has low levels of lead and future migration of contaminated groundwater will likely contaminate additional residential wells with lead. There are three residential wells where exposure to arsenic is occurring. The on-site workers may have been exposed in the past to asbestos, lead, PCB's and other compounds managed at the facility by ingestion, dermal contact, and inhalation.
The Toxicological Evaluation portion of this section will discuss the implications of the human exposures to lead and arsenic and probable human exposures to asbestos, chlordane, PCBs, and dioxin. In the Health Outcome Data Evaluation subsection the guidelines ATSDR uses to select health outcomes for evaluation will be described. Community health concerns will be addressed in the Community Health Concerns Evaluation subsection.
Typically, the toxicological evaluation in a public health assessment involves comparison of the exposure dose for those individuals in an exposure pathway to ATSDR's Minimal Risk Levels (MRLs) or EPA's Reference Doses (Rfd). The MRLs and Rfds are estimates of daily human exposure to a contaminant below which noncarcinogenic adverse health effects are unlikely to occur (10). This means that any exposure dose that is below the appropriate MRL or Rfd, does not represent a hazard to human health. The finding of an exposure dose above the appropriate MRL or Rfd indicates that evaluation of the toxicological literature needs to be done to determine whether the specific exposure situation represents a hazard to public health. The exposure dose, based on the contaminant concentrations and exposure length for the area where exposure has, is, or could occur, is compared to the MRL or Rfd appropriate for the route and length of exposure.
This sort of comparison can be done only for arsenic as this is the only contaminant of concern where both exposure levels are known and an health guideline (Rfd) is available. While there is one known exposure situation for lead, no health guideline is available. For the other contaminants of concern, no specific exposures have been demonstrated. The exposure dose for arsenic will be discussed in the next paragraphs. The possible public health implications of the other contaminants will also be briefly described.
The exposure doses for ingestion of water contaminated with the maximum levels of arsenic in residential wells were calculated in the following manner. The maximum concentration for arsenic (9 ppb) was multiplied by the daily ingestion rate of water for adults, 2 liters/day; and for children, 1 liter/day. This product was divided by the average weight for an adult, 70 kg (154 pounds) or for a child, 10 kg (22 pounds). These results were compared to the oral Rfd for arsenic of 0.0003 mg/kg/day (11). These calculations assume that all the water drunk during a day was contaminated with the maximum level.
The adult exposure dose for arsenic did not exceed the Rfd for the arsenic. However, the exposure dose for children did exceed the Rfd for arsenic. The possible noncarcinogenic health effects of exposure of children to the maximum levels of arsenic in residential levels will be discussed subsequently.
It is unlikely that ingestion by children of the maximum level of arsenic in water will result in adverse health effects. The exposure dose is two times lower than the lowest no observed effects level and 13 times lower than the lowest observed effects levels reported from human epidemiological studies (12). As mentioned previously, the arsenic levels identified around Arctic Surplus appear to be typical for the Fairbanks area.
Arsenic is considered a human carcinogen (12). However, ingestion of the maximum levels of arsenic in off-site residential wells does not represent a risk for carcinogenic effects, based on a comparison of the exposure dose for adults to the lowest observed effect level observed in epidemiologic investigations of human exposures (12).
Studies of workers indicate that asbestos can cause health effects with exposures as short as 6 months. Possible effects include asbestosis (scarring of lung tissue which restricts breathing), mesothelioma (cancer of the linings of the chest or abdominal cavities), and lung cancer (especially among persons who also smoke cigarettes). There is usually a latency period of 15 or more years between exposure to asbestos and the onset of lung cancer and mesothelioma (13). Depending on length and amount of exposure, past workers at this site may experience health effects related to exposure to asbestos. Until ATSDR receives additional information concerning the on- and off-site levels of asbestos in the air and soils, the current public health implication of asbestos at the site can not be evaluated.
Based on animal studies, the levels of chlordane found on-site could increase the risk of cancer, cause liver damage, and, at the highest concentrations, cause gastrointestinal and central nervous system effects (14). However, it is improbable that significant exposure could occur due to the limited area known to be contaminated.
The Centers for Disease Control has calculated a safe level of 1 ppb for 2,3,7,8-TCDD in residential soil. A 70 year exposure to 1 ppb would increase an individual's risk of cancer (15). Health effects from exposure to the dioxin on-site are very improbable, since the equivalent level of dioxin is below 1 ppb and 70 years of exposure is unlikely to occur. The site has only been in existence for 40 years.
Long-term exposure of children to levels above 20 ppb in water could result in learning deficits and other neurological effects. Effects in adults may start at long-term exposures to levels as low as 50 ppb in water (7). The levels of lead found in the on-site wells could cause health effects in both children and adults. However, information provided to ATSDR indicates no one obtains drinking water from these wells. Until ATSDR receives additional information concerning the on- and off-site levels of lead in the groundwater and soils, the current public health implication of lead at the site can not be evaluated.
Based on animal studies, several days to weeks of exposure to the highest on-site levels of PCB's could cause liver damage. Long-term exposure (years) to the lower PCB concentrations found on-site could cause birth defects and elevate the risk of cancer (8). Until ATSDR receives additional information concerning the on- and off-site levels of PCBs in the soils, the current public health implication of PCBs at the site can not be evaluated.
B. Health Outcome Data Evaluation
In a public health assessment, available health outcome databases are identified for the area near the site. From those available data, ATSDR selects health outcomes for further evaluation that are biologically plausible or are community health concerns. However for the Arctic Surplus site, no analysis of health outcome data was conducted because no data were available for the area around the site.
C. Community Health Concerns Evaluation
The community health concerns are addressed as follows.
Cancer Incidence
Cancer incidence or mortality data for the area around this site need to be evaluated to ascertain whether the community's impressions about cancer frequency are correct. This type of data is not presently available for ATSDR to review. However, cervical and colon cancers have not previously been associated with environmental agents (16,17). Brain and spinal cancers have not been associated with the chemicals found on-site (18). The results of the residential soil and well water sampling mentioned above, are needed to determine if levels of contaminants are high enough to possibly cause any adverse health effects.
Epilepsy
The term epilepsy denotes any disorder characterized by recurrent seizures. A seizure is a disturbance of cerebral function due to an abnormal and sudden discharge of action in the cells of the brain. Epilepsy is a common disorder affecting approximately 0.5% of the population in the U.S.A.
Epilepsy has several causes. Its most likely cause in individual patients relates to the age at onset. Epilepsy has not been related to environmental exposures. Causes associated with epilepsy are known as idiopathic or constitutional and symptomatic. In idiopathic epilepsy no specific cause is identified and there is no other neurologic abnormality. The usual age at which seizures begin to occur is between 5 and 20 years of age.
Symptomatic epilepsy on the other hand, has many causes: metabolic disorders (low levels of calcium, vitamin deficiencies, phenylketonuria); head injuries; tumors and other space occupying lesions in the head; and infectious diseases (bacterial-meningitis, viral-encephalitis, and parasitic). Patients with AIDS can also have seizures due to secondary infections in the brain.
Based on a review of the literature, it is very unlikely that any cases of epilepsy occurring in the area around Arctic Surplus site, are site-related.
Testicular Swelling
Testicular swelling is a nonspecific health concern and may be a result of a number diseases. The causes of each of the diseases is very different and has not been related to environmental exposures in the scientific and medical literature.
Mental Health and Environmental Contamination
No clear association between exposure to chemicals in the environment and mental health impacts has been established to date.
Birth Defects and Mental Retardation
These concerns can not be addressed without birth defects data and information on which contaminants, if any, present in residential well water and yards. The birth defects data are not currently available. ATSDR is recommending in this public health assessment that off-site environmental sampling be done.
Dioxin
High levels of exposure to dioxin can cause a severe skin lesion in humans called chloracne, and may damage the liver, cause weight loss, loss of appetite, and digestive orders (9). However, two recent studies of long-term human exposure to soils contaminated with up to 2.2 ppm of dioxin did not identify any health effects (19,20). A broad battery of physical, clinical and immunological exams were administered to individuals who had lived in areas contaminated with dioxin. The soil levels encountered in these two studies are much higher than any level on-site at Arctic Surplus.
Lead
Exposure to lead causes a wide range of effects (7). The level of lead in blood is a good measure of recent exposure and also correlates well with health effects. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) recently concluded that levels of 10 ug/dL and perhaps lower in children's blood have been associated with adverse health effects; levels of 15 ug/dL and greater can result in a decrease in IQ and rate of growth (21). In adults, levels as low as 15 ug/dL are linked to an increase in blood pressure (7). Lead can significantly affect both the reproductive process and the development of the fetus at blood lead levels in a pregnant woman as low as 10 ug/dL (7,21). Documented effects include reduced production of sperm, premature birth, and low birth weight (7).
Children are especially sensitive to lead and many of its effects are observed at lower concentrations than in adults (7). Children exposed to lead may have impaired mental and physical development, decreased heme (a component of red blood cells) production, hearing problems, and decreased levels of vitamin D (22). Neurological effects may persist after exposure has ceased and blood lead levels have returned to normal (23).
This increased vulnerability of children results from a combination of factors, including: (1) the increased susceptibility of the developing nervous system to the neurotoxic effects of lead, (2) an average higher rate of soil ingestion than adults, (3) the greater efficiency of lead absorption in the gastrointestinal tract of children, (4) the greater prevalence of iron or calcium deficiencies which may exacerbate the toxic effects of lead, and (5) the ready transfer of lead across the placenta to the developing fetus (22).
Health effects in children appear to begin at blood lead levels of 10 ug/dL (22). Three literature reviews have evaluated the relationship between concentrations of lead in soil and blood lead levels in children (24-26) All three concluded that soil lead levels of 1000 ppm would increase concentrations in blood from 0.6 to 65 ug/dL with an average increase of 4-5 ug/dL. This wide range was due to different sources of lead, exposure conditions, and exposed populations. The health effects associated with such an increase would depend partly on the existing body burden of lead.
The taste and odor of drinking water is not necessarily indicative of possible health consequences. Only sampling and analysis of water from private wells can identify whether there are chemicals or bacteria present at levels of health concern.
ATSDR is recommending in this public health assessment that additional testing of wells near the site be done.
ATSDR is recommending in this public health assessment that sampling of residential soils be done.
The sampling of off-site residential soils and wells recommended in this public health assessment would assist to address this concern.
This is dependent on the types and concentrations of contaminants present in the yards, the amount of time the children spend playing outside, and whether the ground is frozen. The washing of hands before eating reduces the ingestion of any contaminants present. Personal habits such as putting fingers in mouths and eating soil also can affect the amount of contaminants ingested. The sampling of off-site residential soils and wells recommended in this public health assessment would assist in identifying which, if any, contaminants are present.
This can not be determined without sampling residential yards. Small amounts of the contaminants may be on or in the vegetables. Washing will remove contaminants on the surface of vegetables. The amount of contaminants in the flesh of the vegetables would be dependent on the amount in the soil and the ability of the plant to take in the contaminant. Sampling of residential yards is one of the recommendations in this public health assessment.
The two independently compiled lists of individuals reported to have site-related adverse health effects indicate a possible cluster of adverse health outcomes in the area around Arctic Surplus. The lack of appropriate health outcome databases prevented evaluation of this possible cluster in this public health assessment.
The Arctic Surplus site is considered an public health hazard because of the potential for exposure to lead through ingestion of water from residential wells, and because of the past exposures of workers to asbestos, lead, and PCB's on-site. The soil on-site is extensively contaminated with lead, PCBs, and other contaminants. Seven of nine on-site and three of eight off-site wells had detectable levels of lead (5-579 ppb). One of these wells was an off-site residential well with 5 ppb of lead.
There is a clear potential for the site contaminants to be transported via the air and/or groundwater to the residential soil and/or drinking water wells. Sampling of residential yards and water wells is needed to address these issues. Insufficient data are available to determine whether this has occurred or whether the contaminant levels, if any, are a health concern.
The reported cluster of adverse health outcomes (i.e., the two lists of individuals with adverse health effects) could not be investigated using the existing health outcome databases. This possible cluster needs to be investigated.
ATSDR recommends the following for this site:
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), as amended, requires ATSDR to perform public health actions needed at hazardous waste sites. To determine if public health actions are needed, ATSDR's Health Activities Recommendation Panel (HARP) has evaluated the data and information developed in the Arctic Surplus Preliminary Public Health Assessment.
HARP determined that a community health investigation is needed to help address community concerns about cancer and other health outcomes. This could include documentation of some of the alleged illness and/or a medical records review. ATSDR is recommending in this public health assessment that the possible cluster of adverse health outcomes be investigated. ATSDR will be working with the Alaska Department of Health to accomplish this.
HARP determined that blood lead testing of residents of the area near Arctic Surplus be conducted because of the clear potential that exposure to lead above 15 ppb in drinking water is occurring. ATSDR will work with the Alaska Department of Health to accomplish this blood lead testing.
In addition, HARP determined that community and health professions education is indicated. The community health education should include information on how to minimize exposures to lead and the known health effects of the substances present. The health professions education should focus on the effects of lead, asbestos, and arsenic.
ATSDR will reevaluate this site for any indicated follow-up whenever data become available suggesting that human exposure to hazardous substances at levels of public health concern did occur or is currently occurring.
The preliminary public health assessment for the Arctic Surplus NPL site, Fairbanks, Alaska was available for public review and comment from May 20 through June 20, 1991. A summary of the comments received can be found in Appendix B.
Environmental:
Sven E. Rodenbeck, P.E.
Environmental Engineer Consultant
Remedial Programs Branch
Health:
John R. Crellin, Ph.D.
Environmental Health Scientist
Remedial Programs Branch
Leticia Arredondo, M.D., M.P.H.
Medical Officer
Federal Programs Branch
Typist:
Charlotta V. Gavin
Clerk Typist
Remedial Programs Branch
Regional Representatives
Joel D. Mulder
Senior Public Health Advisor
ATSDR Region X
Greg Thomas
Senior Regional Representative
ATSDR Region X
APPENDIX A - ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLING DATA
Contaminants of Concern - Arctic Surplus NPL Site, Fairbanks, Alaska
Table 1 - Range of Contaminant Concentrations in On-site Soil Samples
| Contaminant | Range of Levels in ppb | Comparison Value | |
| ppb | Source | ||
| Chlordane | <1,400 - 320,000,000 | 1,200 - 420,000* | 1 |
| PCBs1 | <100 - 8,000,000 | 10 - 3,500* | 1 |
| TCDD TEF2 | <0.0034 - 0.83 | 0.002 - 0.7* | 1 |
| Lead | 43,000 - 183,000,000 | ** | - |
| Asbestos | visible contamination | *** | 2 |
Table 2 - Contaminant Concentration in On-site Ground-water
Preexisting Wells
| Contaminant | Range of Levels in ppb | Comparison Value | |
| ppb | Source | ||
| Lead | <5 - 579 | 15* | 3 |
| Arsenic | <6 - 45 | 3 - 11**** | 4 |
Table 3 - Contaminant Concentration in On-site Ground-water
Monitoring Wells 2-3 and 5-8
| Contaminant | Range of Levels in ppb | Comparison Value | |
| ppb | Source | ||
| Lead | <4 - 29 | 15* | 3 |
| Arsenic | <5 - 68 | 3 - 11**** | 4 |
Table 4 - Contaminant Concentration in Off-site Ground-water
Wells
| Contaminant | Range of Levels in ppb | Comparison Value | |
| ppb | Source | ||
| Lead | <2 - 16 | 15 | 3 |
| Arsenic | <5 - 87 | 3 - 11**** | 4 |
Explanation of Tables 1 - 4
1 PCB - polychlorinated chlorinated biphenyl. In this case it was the commercial mixture of PCB's called Aroclor 1260.
2 TCDD - Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin and TEF - Toxic equivalence factor
* This substance is considered a probable human carcinogen.
** A comparison value can not be calculated for lead because there are no MRLs, Rfds, or cancer slope factors. Whenever lead is found at a site, further evaluation is made because of lead's well-documented ability to cause health effects in children at low concentrations in the environment.
*** A comparison value is not available for friable asbestos in soil. However, the presence of friable asbestos in soil is a public health concern because asbestos is a known human carcinogen.
**** Arsenic is a known human carcinogen.
Sources for Environmental Contamination Data
Ecology and Environment, Inc. Site Inspection Report for McPeak Salvage Yard, Fairbanks, Alaska. Anchorage, Alaska: Ecology and Environment, Inc., 1989.
Ecology and Environment, Inc. Technical Assistance Team Site Assessment Final Report for Arctic Surplus, Fairbanks, Alaska. Anchorage, Alaska: Ecology and Environment, Inc., 1989.
Ecology and Environment, Inc. Technical Assistance Team Site Assessment Final Report for Arctic Surplus, Fairbanks, Alaska. Anchorage, Alaska: Ecology and Environment, Inc., 1990.
Ecology and Environment, Inc. On-Scene Coordinator's Report for: Arctic Surplus, Fairbanks, Alaska. Anchorage, Alaska: Ecology and Environment, Inc., 1991.
Corps of Engineers. Final Report on Chemical Data from Groundwater Monitoring - Arctic Surplus Site, Fairbanks, Alaska. Anchorage: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. October 1991.
Sources for Comparison Values
APPENDIX B - RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS
Summary of Public Comments
The Arctic Surplus Preliminary Public Health Assessment was available for public review and comment from May 20 through June 20, 1991. The Public Comment Period was announced in local newspapers and by local radio stations. A repository was established to permit public review at the Defense Reutilization and Marketing Office, Badger Road, across the street from the site. In addition, copies of the preliminary public health assessment were automatically sent to seven individuals who were interested in reviewing ATSDR's findings. Eight individuals submitted written comments. One individual submitted verbal comments to an ATSDR representative during a telephone conversation. The comments and the corresponding response are summarized below.
Comment
Several individuals requested that ATSDR conduct further and more in-depth reevaluation of the Arctic Surplus NPL site.
Response
ATSDR will continue to be involved with the Arctic Surplus NPL site throughout the remedial process. ATSDR is recommending in this public health assessment that the possible cluster of adverse health outcomes be investigated. ATSDR will be working with the Alaska Department of Health to accomplish this. Additional health evaluations are dependent on determining the extent of contamination off-site. In the Recommendation section of the preliminary public health assessment, ATSDR states what additional environmental sampling is needed. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is planning to collect the necessary samples during the Remedial Investigation of this site. Once the additional information is collected, ATSDR will be able to conduct more in-depth evaluations of the public health concerns related to the Arctic Surplus NPL site.
Comment
The groundwater samples taken from the two on-site residential wells are not representative of the overall groundwater condition.
Response
These well samples due appear to be representative of the groundwater condition at the Arctic Surplus based on the 1990 sampling of the on-site monitoring wells. The preliminary public health assessment recommends that the total extent of this contamination be determined.
APPENDIX C - FIGURES I, II, AND III
Figure 3. Property Boundary Map
