• Home
• About ATSDR
• Press Room
• A-Z Index
• Glossary
• Employment
• Contact Us
• CDC

ATSDR en Español

Search:

Skip directly to: content | left navigation | search

---

Find a Publication

1. ATSDR > Public Health Assessments & Consultations

PUBLIC HEALTH ASSESSMENT

BANGOR NAVAL SUBMARINE BASE
AND
BANGOR ORDNANCE DISPOSAL (USNAVY)
SILVERDALE, KITSAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON

APPENDIX A

Table A1. Hazardous Waste Sites at Naval Submarine Base, Bangor

Site	History of Use/Dates	Contaminants	Status
Operable Unit #1
Site A	Ordnance Disposal	Ordnance compounds	Remediation in progress
Operable Unit #2
Site F	Former Wastewater Lagoon	Ordnance compounds	Remediation in progress
Operable Unit #3
Site 16	Drum Storage Area	Metals	Monitoring in progress
Site 24	Former Incinerator Site
Site 25	Former Treatment Plant Outfall
Operable Unit #4
Site C - West	Building 7700 Fill Area	Metals, VOCs, ordnance compounds	No action necessary
Site C - East	Ordnance Wastewater Disposal Area
Operable Unit #5
Site 5	Former Metallurgy Lab Rubble	Mercury	No action necessary
Operable Unit #6
Site D	Munitions Burn Area	Ordnance compounds	Remediation Complete
Operable Unit #7
Site B	Floral Point	PCBs, metals, pesticides, TPH	Remediation complete
Site E	Old Acid Pit		No action necessary
Site 2	Classification Yard		Remediation complete
Site 4	Carlson Spit		No action necessary
Site 7	Old Paint Can Site		No action necessary
Site 10	Pesticide Storage Quonset Huts		Monitoring in progress
Site 11	Pesticide Drum Disposal Area		Remediation complete
Site 18	PCB Spill Site		No action necessary
Site 26	Hood Canal Sediments		Monitoring in progress
Site 30	Railroad Tracks		No action necessary
Operable Unit #8
Site 27	Building 1014 Steam Cleaning Pit	VOCs, metals, TPH, Pesticides	Remediation in progress
Site 28	Building 1032 Drainage Ditch
Site 29	Public Works Maintenance Garage

APPENDIX B: FIGURES

Figure 1. Site Location Map

Figure 2. Hazardous Waste Sites

Figure 3. Demographics

Figure 4. Adjacent Residential Communities

Figure 5. Vicinity Public Supply Wells

Figure 6. On-base Public Supply Wells

Figure 7. Monitoring and Private Well Locations in the Mountain View Road Area Near Operable Unit-8

Figure 8. Extent of 1,2-Dichloroethane (1,2-DCA) Groundwater Contamination in the Mountain View Road Area Near Operable Unit-8

Figure 9. Hood Canal Shellfish and Sediment Sampling Locations

Figure 10. Site-A (OU-1) Vicinity Map

Figure 11. Site-A (OU-1) Monitoring and Extraction Well Locations

Figure 12. Private Well and Public Well Locations in Vinland Adjacent to Site-A (OU-1)

Figure 13. Site-F (OU-1) Vicinity Map

Figure 14. Site-F (OU-2) Monitoring and Extraction Well Locations

APPENDIX C: CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN

The tables below list the contaminants of concern (COCs) for each competed exposure pathway. A contaminant is compared with a health comparison value (i.e., screening value) to see if it is occurring at a high enough level to warrant further consideration. If a contaminant exceeds its health comparison value for a specific media (i.e., air, soil and water), it is evaluated further under the Pathways Analysis section. The fact that a contaminant exceeds its health comparison value for does not mean that a public health concern exists but rather signifies the need to consider the chemical further. The health comparison values used in this public health assessment to include environmental media evaluation guides (EMEGs), cancer risk evaluation guides (CREGs), reference dose media evaluation guides (RMEGs), maximum contaminant levels, Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA) soil cleanup values, (MCLs), lifetime health advisories (LTHAs) and ambient water quality criteria (AWQCs).

Also, included in the COC tables are EPA's weight-of-evidence cancer classification for each contaminant. This classification scheme will be revised in the near future but currently consists of six groups: 1) Group A - Known Human Carcinogen, 2) Group B1 - Probable Human Carcinogen with sufficient animal data and limited human data, 3) Group B2 - Probable Human Carcinogen with sufficient animal data and inadequate or no human data, 4) Group C - Possible Human Carcinogen, 5) Group D - Not Classifiable as to Human Carcinogenicity and 6) Group E -Evidence of Non-carcinogenicity in Humans

Pathway 1: Mountain View Road Groundwater Mountain View Road Residents

Table C1. Contaminants of Concern in Off-base Groundwater at Mountain View Road near Operable Unit - 8, Naval Submarine Base, Bangor ^a

Contaminant	Groundwater Concentration (ppb)		Comparison Value		Date		Site Location		EPA Cancer Class
	Max	MaxR	ppb	Source	Max	MaxR	Max	MaxR
1,1,2-Trichloroethane	35	1.5	0.6	CREG		12/98	8MW13	8MW13
1,1-Dichloroethene	13	0.39	0.06	CREG		12/98	8MW13	8MW13	C
Benzene	130	2.4	1	CREG		12/98	8MW13	8MW13	A
Carbon tetrachloride	2	0.96	0.3	CREG		12/98	8MW19	8MW19
1,2-Dichloropropane	15	0.53	5	MCL		12/98	8MW13	8MW13
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene	0.6	NS	NA	NA		12/98	8MW13	8MW13	NA
1,1-Dichloroethane	ND	0.31	NA	NA		12/98	NA	8MW19	C
1,2-Dichloroethane	340	21	0.4	CREG		12/98	8MW13	8MW13	B2

Table C2. Contaminants of Concern in Off-base Residential Wells at Mountain View Road near Operable Unit - 8, Naval Submarine Base Bangor

Contaminant	Groundwater Concentration (ppb)		Comparison Value		Date		Site Location		EPA Cancer Class	Comments
	Max	MaxR	ppb	Source	Max	MaxR	Max	MaxR
1,2-Dichloroethane	4.6	2.1	0.4	CREG	4th/95	4th/98	PW-08	PW-08	B2	Well not in use.
1,3-Dinitrobenzene	19.3	13.2	1	RMEG	10/84	8/85	PW-16	PW-16	D	Detections are questionable.

Pathway 2: Cattail Lake/Hood Canal Fish/Shellfish Base personnel/Off-base harvesters

Table C3. Contaminants of Concern in Fish/Shellfish at Naval Submarine Base, Bangor

Contaminant	Maximum Tissue Concentration (ug/kg)	Tissue Type	Date	Site Location	EPA Cancer Class	Comments
1,2,3-Trinitrobenzene	9 a	Cutthroat Trout	10/88	Cattail Lake	NA
Di-n-butylphthalate	1600	Native Little Neck Clams	1/89	Hood Canal (SW-10)	NA	Detected in blank
di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP)	4100	Butter Clams	1/89	Hood Canal (SW-11)	B2	Detected in blank
RDX	3.5	Native Little Neck Clams	10/89	Vinland Creek (A-SW20)	C
Picramic Acid	620	Butter Clams	10/92	Floral Point (MS-107)	NA
Picric Acid	110	Clams	9/92	Cattail Lake (MS-98)	NA	Cattail Lake Beach samples
1,3-Dinitrobenzene	5 a	Shellfish	6/88-1/89	Hood Canal	D	Samples from Cattail Lake drainage
2-amino-4,6-dinitrotoluene	440	NA	NA	Site A	NA
Nitrobenzene	5 a	NA	NA	Hood Canal	NA

Pathway 3: On-base Hazardous Waste Sites Surface Soil Workers

Table C4. Contaminants of Concern in Surface Soil for All Operable Units at Naval Submarine Base Bangor

Contaminant	Maximum/95 UCL (ppm)	Location (Site)	Comparison Value		EPA Cancer Class	Comments
			ppm	Source
ORDNANCE COMPOUNDS
Hexahydro-1,3,5-trinitro-1,3,5-triazine (RDX)	NA/78 a	Site - A (OU-1)	9	MTCA1	C	Site - F max = 20 ppm
2,4,6-Trinitrotoluene (TNT)	14000/534	Site - D (OU-6)	20	CREG	C	Site - A max = 1,300 ppm Site - F max = 1,500 ppm
1,3,5-Trinitrobenzene	17/1	Site - F (OU-2)	2.5	RMEG	NA
2,4-Dinitrotoluene	78/3.7	Site - D (OU-6)	100	cEMEG	B2	Included as COCs since EPA has established cancer potency for 2,4 and 2,6-DNT as a mixture.
2,6-Dinitrotoluene	13.4/NA b	Site - C (OU-4)	200	iEMEG
OTHER ORGANICS
di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP)	1.6/0.9	Site - C (OU-4)	50	CREG	B2	Site - C max at depth = 4.8 ppm Site - B max at depth = 39 ppm Included as a COC in soil due to detections in shellfish.
Polychlorinated biphenyls	4.1/NA c	Site - A (OU-1)	0.4	CREG	B2	Site - B max at depth = 6.4 ppm
INORGANICS
Antimony	35.8	Site - 16/24 (OU-3)	20	RMEG	NA
Lead	940/124 d	Site - A (OU-1)	250	MTCA	B2	95 UCL for Site D = 310 ppm
Arsenic	82.7/14.1	Site 16/24 (OU-3)	0.5	CREG	A

APPENDIX D: EXPOSURE DOSE CALCULATIONS

This section provides the calculated exposure doses and assumptions used for each completed exposure pathway. The dose estimates for each of these pathways are discussed under the Pathways Analysis/Public Health Implications section of the document. The reader should be aware that maximum concentrations are used to calculate these doses. This represents a worst-case scenario that may overestimate actual exposure.

Dose estimates for Mountain View Road residents exposed to 1,2-DCA in drinking water include skin absorption and inhalation of vapors resulting from showering, bathing and other indoor water uses. The assumption, as can be seen in the following tables, is that the combined dose from these two routes of exposure is equivalent to that of ingestion. This assumption is supported by ATSDR guidance although some mathematical models indicate that the inhaled dose for VOCs that volatilize from drinking water can be several times higher than the ingested dose ^(b),(c),(d). Therefore, a combined dose based on three different routes of exposure was generated for comparison with an oral LOAEL and calculation of cancer risk using an oral slope factor.

The following exposure dose equations were used in conjunction with the exposure assumptions given in the tables below
.

Pathway 1: Mountain View Road Groundwater Mountain View Road Residents

Non-Cancer Dose Calculations

Receptor Population	Media	Contaminant	Maximum Concentration (ppb)	Exposure Route	Inhalation/Dermal	Estimated Dose (mg/kg-day)	RfD/MRL	Hazard Index
Child	Drinking water	1,2-Dichloroethane	4.6	Ingestion Inhalation Dermal	Yes x 2	5.0E-04	2.0E-01a	0.003
Adult		1,3-Dinitrobenzene	19.3	Ingestion	No	3.6E-04	1.0E-04	4

a = intermediate MRL

Exposure Assumptions:

Child - IR = 0.87 l/day, ED = 5 years, EF = 350 days/year, BW = 15.3 kg, AT_non-cancer= 1825 days
Adult - IR = 1.4 l/day, ED = 5 years, EF = 350 days/year, BW = 71.8 kg, AT_non-cancer= 1825 days

Cancer Dose Calculations

Receptor Population	Media	Contaminant	Maximum/ 95 UCL Concentration (ppm)	Exposure Route	Inhalation/Dermal	Estimated Dose (mg/kg-day)	Cancer Potency Factor	Cancer Risk	EPA Cancer Group
Child Adult	Drinking water	1,2-Dichloroethane	4.6	Ingestion Inhalation Dermal	Yes x2	1.0E-04	9.1E-02	9.3E-06	B2

Exposure Assumptions:

Child - IR = 0.87 l/day, ED = 5 years, EF = 350 days/year, BW = 15.3 kg, AT_cancer= 25550 days
Older Child - IR = 0.97 l/day, ED = 10 years, EF = 350 days/year, BW = 41.1 kg, AT_cancer= 25550 days
Adult - IR = 1.4 l/day, ED = 15 years, EF = 350 days/year, BW = 71.8 kg, AT_cancer= 25550 days

Pathway 2: Cattail Lake/Hood Canal Fish/Shellfish Base personnel/Off-base harvesters

Non-Cancer Dose Calculations

Receptor Population	Media	Contaminant	Maximum Concentration (ppm)	Exposure Route	Estimated Dose (mg/kg-day)	RfD (mg/kg-day)	Hazard Index
Subsistence Fishers	Fish	1,3,5-Trinitrobenzene	0.009	Ingestion	1.2E-05	5.0E-05	2.4E-01
		1,3-Dinitrobenzene	0.005		6.6E-06	1.0E-04	6.6E-02
		Bis (2-ethylhexyl)phthalate	4.1		5.4E-03	2.0E-02	2.7E-01
		Di-n-butylphthalate	1		1.3E-03	1.0E-01	1.3E-02
		Nitrobenzene	0.005		6.6E-06	5.0E-04	1.3E-02
		Picramic Acid	0.44		5.8E-04	NA	NA
		Picric Acid	0.11		1.5E-04	NA	NA
		RDX	0.0035		4.6E-06	3.0E-03	1.5E-03

Exposure Assumptions: IR = 95.1 g/day, ED = 30 years, EF = 365 days/year, BW = 71.8 kg, AT_non-cancer= 10,950 days

Cancer Dose Calculations

Exposure Assumptions: IR = 95.1 g/day, ED = 30 years, EF = 365 days/year, BW = 71.8 kg, AT_cancerr= 25,550

Pathway 3: On-base Hazardous Waste Sites Surface Soil Workers

Non-Cancer Dose Calculations

a = intermediate MRL

Exposure Assumptions:

ED = 25 years, EF = 250 days/year, BW = 71.8 kg, AT_non-cancer= 9125 days
Dermal: SA = 2,000 cm², AF = 0.2 mg/cm², ABS_svoc= 0.1, ABS_inorganics= 0.01
Ingestion: IR = 50 mg/day

Cancer Dose Calculations

Receptor Population	Media	Contaminant	Maximum/ 95 UCL Concentration (ppm)	Exposure Route	Estimated Dose (mg/kg-day)	Cancer Potency Factor	Cancer Risk	EPA Cancer Group
Workers	Soil	Royal Demolition Explosive (RDX)	78	Ingestion/ Dermal Contact	6.6E-05	1.1E-01	7.3E-06	C
		2,4,6-Trinitrotoluene (TNT)	534		4.5E-04	3.0E-02	1.4E-05	C
		di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (DEHP)	0.9		7.7E-07	1.4E-02	1.1E-08	B2
		2,4-Dinitrotoluene	3.7		3.2E-06	6.8E-01	2.1E-06	B2
		2,6-Dinitrotoluene	0.35		3.0E-07		2.0E-07
		Arsenic	14.1		3.4 E-06	1.5E+00	5.0E-06	A

Exposure Assumptions:

ED = 25 years, EF = 250 days/year, BW = 71.8 kg, AT_cancerr= 25550
Dermal: SA = 2 ,000 cm², AF = 0.2 mg/cm², ABS_svoc= 0.1, ABS_inorganics= 0.01
Ingestion: IR = 50 mg/day

APPENDIX E: ATSDR CONCLUSION CATEGORIES

CATEGORY A : URGENT PUBLIC HEALTH HAZARD

This category is used for sites where short-term exposures (< 1 yr) to hazardous substances or conditions could result in adverse health effects that require rapid intervention.

This determination represents a professional judgement based on critical data which ATSDR has judged sufficient to support a decision. This does not necessarily imply that the available data are complete; in some cases additional data may be required to confirm or further support the decision made.

Criteria:

Evaluation of available relevant information* indicates that site-specific conditions or likely exposures have had, are having, or are likely to have in the future, an adverse impact on human health that requires immediate action or intervention. Such site-specific conditions or exposures may include the presence of serious physical or safety hazards, such as open mine shafts, poorly stored or maintained flammable/explosive substances, or medical devices which, upon rupture, could release radioactive materials.

* Such as environmental and demographic data; health outcome data; exposure data; community health concerns information; toxicologic, medical, and epidemiologic data.

ATSDR Actions:

Based on the degree of hazard posed by the site and the presence of sufficiently defined current, past, or future completed exposure pathways, one or more of the following public health actions can be recommended:

• biologic indicators of exposure study
• biomedical testing
• case study
• disease and symptom prevalence study
• community health investigations
• registries
• site-specific surveillance
• voluntary residents tracking system
• cluster investigation
• health statistics review
• health professional education
• community health education
• substance-specific applied research

This category is used for sites that pose a public health hazard due to the existence of long-term exposures (> 1 yr) to hazardous substance or conditions that could result in adverse health effects.

This determination represents a professional judgement based on critical data which ATSDR has judged sufficient to support a decision. This does not necessarily imply that the available data are complete; in some cases additional data may be required to confirm or further support the decision made.

Criteria:

Evaluation of available relevant information* suggests that, under site-specific conditions of exposure, long-term exposures to site-specific contaminants (including radionuclides) have had, are having, or are likely to have in the future, an adverse impact on human health that requires one or more public health interventions. Such site-specific exposures may include the presence of serious physical hazards, such as open mine shafts, poorly stored or maintained flammable/ explosive substances, or medical devices which, upon rupture, could release radioactive materials.

*Such as environmental and demographic data; health outcome data; exposure data; community health concerns information; toxicologic, medical, and epidemiologic data.

ATSDR Actions:

Based on the degree of hazard posed by the site and the presence of sufficiently defined current, past, or future completed exposure pathways, one or more of the following public health actions can be recommended:

• biologic indicators of exposure study
• biomedical testing
• case study
• disease and symptom prevalence study
• community health investigations
• registries
• site-specific surveillance
• voluntary residents tracking system
• cluster investigation
• health statistics review
• health professional education
• community health education
• substance-specific applied research

Below is a summary of the only public comment received on the draft Public Health Assessment for the Naval Submarine Base, Bangor followed by a response.

1. Detailed concerns were expressed regarding the safety of munitions and their potential for explosion during transport, loading and other handling operations. Specific concerns were noted about the safety of the rocket propellant used in the D-4 and D-5 missile systems. These concerns relate to the potential for explosion of the rocket motors and subsequent release (non-nuclear) of plutonium from the warhead. The comment indicates that the explosive handling buffer designed to protect the public from an explosion is not adequate for the D-5 missile.

The purpose of the public health assessment process is to evaluate the potential for exposure to chemicals in the environment and whether such exposure presents a public health hazard. The concerns about explosive hazards from normal operations at the base do not fall within the scope of this assessment. However, DOH did request information from the base regarding this concern. The base maintains that it has "operated safely within prescribed regulations since the early days of the Polaris program in the 1960's and more recently with the Trident program since the mid 1970's." In addition, the base noted that the explosive safety quantity-distance (ESQD) arcs "have been based on the "higher net explosive weight of the D-5 missile was used to site all facilities related to explosive operations."

The base also indicated that this issue has been raised previously and is currently being addressed by the Navy Strategic Systems Programs Office and the Naval Ordnance Safety and Security Activity (NOSSA). An appropriate contact for the Navy regarding explosive safety concerns is Rick Adams (NOSSA) at 301-744-4965 ext. 169. Bangor can be contacted through the Installation Restoration Program Office at 360-396-5099. The full text of the comment received will be forwarded to each of these contacts.

CERTIFICATION

This Health Assessment was prepared by the Washington State Department of Health under a cooperative agreement with the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). It is in accordance with approved methodology and procedures existing at the time the Health Assessment was initiated.

Carole D. Hossom
Technical Project Officer
Federal Facilities Assessment Branch
Division of Health Assessment and Consultation

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

Diane Jackson
Chief, Defense Facilities Section B
Federal Facilities Assessment Branch
Division of Health Assessment and Consultation
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry

Table of Contents

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, 1825 Century Blvd, Atlanta, GA 30345
Contact CDC: 800-232-4636 / TTY: 888-232-6348 

Department of Health and Human Services