Skip directly to search Skip directly to A to Z list Skip directly to site content

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

Site Location Map
Figure 1. Site Location Map

Hazardous Waste Sites
Figure 2. Hazardous Waste Sites

Demographics
Figure 3. Demographics

Adjacent Residential Communities
Figure 4. Adjacent Residential Communities

Vicinity Public Supply Wells
Figure 5. Vicinity Public Supply Wells

On-base Public Supply Wells
Figure 6. On-base Public Supply Wells

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

Extent of 1,2-dichloroethane (1,2-DCA) groundwater contamination 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

Hood Canal Shellfish and Sediment Sampling Locations
Figure 9. Hood Canal Shellfish and Sediment Sampling Locations

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

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

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

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

Site-F (OU-2) Monitoring and Extraction Well Locations
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. Acontaminant is compared with a health comparison value (i.e., screening value) to see if it isoccurring at a high enough level to warrant further consideration. If a contaminant exceeds its healthcomparison value for a specific media (i.e., air, soil and water), it is evaluated further under thePathways Analysis section. The fact that a contaminant exceeds its health comparison value for doesnot mean that a public health concern exists but rather signifies the need to consider the chemicalfurther. The health comparison values used in this public health assessment to include environmentalmedia evaluation guides (EMEGs), cancer risk evaluation guides (CREGs), reference dose mediaevaluation guides (RMEGs), maximum contaminant levels, Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA) soilcleanup 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 eachcontaminant. This classification scheme will be revised in the near future but currently consists ofsix groups: 1) Group A - Known Human Carcinogen, 2) Group B1 - Probable Human Carcinogenwith sufficient animal data and limited human data, 3) Group B2 - Probable Human Carcinogenwith sufficient animal data and inadequate or no human data, 4) Group C - Possible HumanCarcinogen, 5) Group D - Not Classifiable as to Human Carcinogenicity and 6) Group E -Evidenceof Non-carcinogenicity in Humans

Pathway 1: Mountain View Road arrow Groundwater arrow 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
a = Considers sample data from off-base monitoring wells and residential wells in the Mountain View Road area. No residential wells in the sampling area are currently in use as domestic water supplies.
Max = Maximum value ever detected.MaxR = Most recent maximum value detected.

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 arrow Fish/Shellfish arrow 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

a = Detections that are not confirmed in raw data tables from Ref. X provided in Appendix F but are shown in summary data of Appendix G
Note: Metals were detected within expected background ranges.


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

 

a = Represents the 95 UCL for historic data collected between 1979 and 1982 prior to RI sampling.
b = Maximum level of 2,6-dinitrotoluene in surface soil was detected at Site C (OU-4) in only 1 of 20 samples. The 95 UCL of 0.35 ppm from Site D (OU-6) was used to estimate exposure dose.
c = PCBs detected in 1 of 23 soil samples analyzed from Site A. PCBs were not included in dose estimates since they were detected below this maximum level and infrequently throughout the remainder of the base.
d = Maximum level of lead in surface soil was detected at Site A, however, the 95 UCL for lead at Site D exceeds that for Site A and so was used in exposure dose estimates.
Max = Maximum value ever detected.
NA = Not applicable
MTCA= Washington State Department of Ecology - Model Toxic Control Act - Method B cleanup standard.


APPENDIX D: EXPOSURE DOSE CALCULATIONS

This section provides the calculated exposure doses and assumptions used for each completedexposure pathway. The dose estimates for each of these pathways are discussed under the PathwaysAnalysis/Public Health Implications section of the document. The reader should be aware thatmaximum concentrations are used to calculate these doses. This represents a worst-case scenario thatmay 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
.

Ingested Dose - Drinking Water

IDdw= Cdw x IRdw x CFdw x EF x ED
BW x AT

Ingested Dose - Soil

IDs = Cs x IRs x CFs x EF x ED
BW x AT

Dermally Absorbed Dose - Soil

DADs = DAevent x EF x ED x SA
BW x AT

DAevent = Cs x AF x ABS x ADJ x CF

Ingested Dose - Fish/Shellfish

IDf = Cf x IRf x CF x EF x ED
BW x AT

Pathway 1: Mountain View Road arrow Groundwater arrow 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, ATnon-cancer= 1825 days
Adult - IR = 1.4 l/day, ED = 5 years, EF = 350 days/year, BW = 71.8 kg, ATnon-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 arrowAdult 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, ATcancer= 25550 days
Older Child - IR = 0.97 l/day, ED = 10 years, EF = 350 days/year, BW = 41.1 kg, ATcancer= 25550 days
Adult - IR = 1.4 l/day, ED = 15 years, EF = 350 days/year, BW = 71.8 kg, ATcancer= 25550 days


Pathway 2
: Cattail Lake/Hood Canal arrow Fish/Shellfish arrow 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, ATnon-cancer= 10,950 days

Cancer Dose Calculations

Receptor
Population
Media Contaminant Maximum
Concentration
(ppm)
Exposure
Route
Estimated Dose
(mg/kg-day)
Cancer
Potency Factor
Cancer Risk EPA
Cancer Group
Subsistence Fishers Fish RDX 0.0035 Ingestion 2.0E-06 1.1E-01 2.2E-07 C
Bis (2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 4.1 2.3E-03 1.4E-02 3.3E-05 B2

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


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

Non-Cancer Dose Calculations

Receptor
Population
Media Contaminant Maximum/
95 UCL
Concentration
(ppm)
Exposure
Route
Estimated Dose
(mg/kg-day)
MRL/RfD
(mg/kg-day)
Hazard Index
Workers Soil Royal Demolition Explosive (RDX) 78 Ingestion/
Dermal
Contact
1.9E-04 3.0E-03 6.2E-02
2,4,6-Trinitrotoluene (TNT) 534 1.3E-03 5.0E-04 2.5E+00
1,3,5-Trinitrobenzene 1 2.4E-06 3.0E-02 7.9E-05
Bis (2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 0.9 2.1E-06 2.0E-02 1.1E-04
2,4-Dinitrotoluene 3.7 8.8E-06 2.0E-03 4.4E-03
2,6-Dinitrotoluene 0.35 8.3E-07 4.0E-03 a 2.1E-04
Antimony 11 7.3E-06 4.0E-04 1.8E-02
Lead 310 2.1E-04 NA NA
Arsenic 14.1 9.4E-06 3.0E-04 3.1E-02

a = intermediate MRL

Exposure Assumptions:

ED = 25 years, EF = 250 days/year, BW = 71.8 kg, ATnon-cancer= 9125 days
Dermal: SA = 2,000 cm2, AF = 0.2 mg/cm2, ABSsvoc= 0.1, ABSinorganics= 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, ATcancerr= 25550
Dermal: SA = 2 ,000 cm2, AF = 0.2 mg/cm2, ABSsvoc= 0.1, ABSinorganics= 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 thatrequire 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 theavailable 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 impacton 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 asopen 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, andepidemiologic data.

ATSDR Actions:


ATSDR will expeditiously issue a health advisory that includes recommendations to mitigate the health risks posed by the site. The recommendations issued in the health advisory and/or health assessment should be consistent with the degree of hazard and temporal concerns posed by exposures to hazardous substances at the site.

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

CATEGORY B: PUBLIC HEALTH HAZARD

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 orconditions 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 theavailable 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 mayinclude 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, andepidemiologic data.

ATSDR Actions:


ATSDR will make recommendations in the health assessment to mitigate the health risks posed by the site. The recommendations issued in the health assessment should be consistent with the degree of hazard and temporal concerns posed by exposures to hazardous substances at the site. Actions on the recommendations may have occurred before the actual completion of the public health assessment.

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

CATEGORY C: INDETERMINATE PUBLIC HEALTH HAZARD

This category is used for sites when a professional judgement on the level of health hazard cannot be made because information critical to such a decision is lacking.

Criteria:

This category is used for sites in which "critical" data are insufficient with regard to extent of exposure and/or toxicologic properties at estimated exposure levels. The health assessor must determine, using professional judgement, the "criticality" of such data and the likelihood that the data can be obtained and will be obtained in a timely manner. Where some data are available, even limited data, the health assessor is encouraged to the extent possible to select other hazard categories and to support their decision with clear narrative that explains the limits of the data and the rationale for the decision.

ATSDR Actions:


ATSDR will make recommendations in the health assessment to identify the data or information needed to adequately assess the public health risks posed by the site.

Public health actions recommended in this category will depend on the hazard potential of the site, specifically as it relates to the potential for human exposure of public health concern. Actions on the recommendations may have occurred before the actual completion of the public health assessment.

If the potential for exposure is high, initial health actions aimed at determining the population with the greatest risk of exposure can be recommended. Such health actions include:

  • community health investigation
  • health statistics review
  • cluster investigation
  • symptom and disease prevalence study

If the population of concern can be determined through these or other actions, any of the remaining follow-up health activities listed under categories A and B may be recommended.

In addition, if data become available suggesting that human exposure to hazardous substances at levels of public health concern is occurring or has occurred in the past, ATSDR will reevaluate the need for any follow-up.

CATEGORY D: NO APPARENT PUBLIC HEALTH HAZARD

This category is used for sites where human exposure to contaminated media may be occurring, may have occurred in the past, and/or may occur in the future, but the exposure is not expected to cause any adverse health effects.

This determination represents a professional judgement based on critical data which ATSDR considers 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, under site-specific conditions of exposure, exposures to site-specific contaminants in the past, present, or future are not likely to result in any adverse impact on human health.

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

ATSDR Actions:


If appropriate, ATSDR will make recommendations for monitoring or other removal and/or remedial actions needed to ensure that humans are not exposed to significantconcentrations of hazardous substances in the future. Actions on the recommendations may have occurred before the actual completion of the public health assessment.

The following health actions, which may be recommended in this category, are based on information indicating that no human exposure is occurring or has occurred in the past to hazardous substances at levels of public health concern. One or more of the following health actions are recommended for sites in this category:

  • community health education
  • health professional education
  • community health investigation
  • voluntary residents tracking system

However, if data become available suggesting that human exposure to hazardous substances at levels of public health concern is occurring, or has occurred in the past, ATSDR will reevaluate the need for any follow-up.

CATEGORY E: NO PUBLIC HEALTH HAZARD

This category is used for sites that, because of the absence of exposure, do NOT pose a public health hazard.

Criteria:

Sufficient evidence indicates that no human exposures to contaminated media have occurred, none are now occurring, and none are likely to occur in the future.

ATSDR Actions:


No public health actions are recommended at this time because no human exposure is occurring, has occurred in the past, or is likely to occur in the future that may be of public health concern.


APPENDIX E: RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS

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

1. Detailed concerns were expressed regarding the safety of munitions and their potentialfor explosion during transport, loading and other handling operations. Specific concernswere 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 subsequentrelease (non-nuclear) of plutonium from the warhead. The comment indicates that theexplosive handling buffer designed to protect the public from an explosion is not adequatefor the D-5 missile.

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

The base also indicated that this issue has been raised previously and is currently being addressed bythe 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 RestorationProgram 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 acooperative agreement with the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). It isin accordance with approved methodology and procedures existing at the time the HealthAssessment 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


b Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Public Health Assessment Guidance Manual. Lewis Publishers, Chelsea, Michigan. 1992.

c McKone, TE. Household exposure models. Toxicology Letters. 1989; 49:321-39.

d Maxwell NI, Burmaster DE and Ozonoff D. Trihalomethanes and maximum contaminant levels: the significance of inhalation and dermal exposures to chloroform in household water. Regul. Toxicol.Pharmacol. 1991; 14:297-312.




Table of Contents

  
 
USA.gov: The U.S. Government's Official Web PortalDepartment of Health and Human Services
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, 4770 Buford Hwy NE, Atlanta, GA 30341
Contact CDC: 800-232-4636 / TTY: 888-232-6348

A-Z Index

  1. A
  2. B
  3. C
  4. D
  5. E
  6. F
  7. G
  8. H
  9. I
  10. J
  11. K
  12. L
  13. M
  14. N
  15. O
  16. P
  17. Q
  18. R
  19. S
  20. T
  21. U
  22. V
  23. W
  24. X
  25. Y
  26. Z
  27. #