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

PUBLIC HEALTH ASSESSMENT

FAIRCHILD AIR FORCE BASE
SPOKANE, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON


HEALTH OUTCOME DATA EVALUATION

As shown above, residents living near the base were exposed primarily to TCE and Tordon. Thetoxicological literature indicates that the most likely cancer outcomes from high exposures toTCE include ling, liver, kidney, and bladder cancer as well as leukemia. The most likely outcomefrom Tordon exposure is liver cancer. The Washington State Cancer Registry was used toevaluate whether any increase of these cancers was evident in the residents living near the base. Cancer occurrence from 1992 through 1994 was used for the evaluation. Vietzke Village andWest Thorpe Road area residents were considered to be the populations at greatest risk.

Several problems in this type of evaluation must be overcome. The first is that data in theregistry are compiled to the zip code level only (i.e., 99022). It is not possible to pull out andstudy only those residents who might be exposed in the small community near the base. Theentire population served by the zip code must be studied together. This means that many peoplenot living in the exposure area are included in the evaluation of cancer rates. The addition ofunexposed persons to the study population can eliminate an otherwise measurable cancerincrease in the exposed population. Conversely, if those people living outside the area ofexposure are included in the study population and have cancer risk factors not found in theexposed population, a cancer increase unrelated to the exposure in question may be found.

An additional problem is that the studied population is relatively small. In order to detect smallincreases in cancer risk, large study populations are required. Estimates of cancer risk resultingfrom the identified exposures of Vietzke Village and West Thorpe Road residents are less than 1in 10,000 while the population of the entire zip code is about 6,500. The exposed populationwithin the zip code is even smaller. Another problem associated with cancer rates calculatedfrom small populations is that the chance of random occurrence causing large errors is very high. Because of these factors, care must be exercised in the interpretation of the rates.

Since occurrence of these cancers in this population is relatively rare, rather than calculate directrates, a ratio of observed to expected rates was calculated. This is more time consuming, butallows a more accurate estimation of any true increase. In this method, specific cancer rates, asthey occur in all Washington state residents, are applied to the population living in the study area. This is done by applying Washington state age specific rates for each 5 year age group (0 to 4years old, 5 to 9 years old, 10 to 14 years old, etc. up to age 85+) to each 5 year age group inthe study area. The numbers of calculated cases are added together and the result is the numberof cancers that would be expected to occur if the community near the base was developingcancers at the same rate as the rest of Washington state. The actual number of cancer casesoccurring is then retrieved from the cancer registry. The number expected is compared with thenumber observed to evaluate the possibility of increased cancer in the community. If the numberof cases expected to occur (from the calculation) is substantially smaller than what is actuallyfound (from the cancer registry), there may be an increased risk of cancer in the community.

The following are specific types of cancer evaluated as described above.

    Leukemia

The number of leukemias expected to occur during the three years of study was calculated to be1.7. The registry lists two people with leukemia. This ratio (1.7 to 2) indicates no likely increasein the occurrence of leukemia in this community.

    Liver

The number of liver cancers expected to occur during the three years of study was calculated tobe 0.7 (less than one person). The registry lists one person with liver cancer. This ratio (0.7 to1) indicates no likely increase in the occurrence of liver cancer in this community.

    Kidney/bladder

The number of bladder cancers expected to occur during the three years of study was calculatedto be 4.2. The registry lists five persons with bladder cancer. This ratio (4.2 to 5) indicates nolikely increase in the occurrence of bladder cancer in this community.

    Lung Cancer

The number of lung cancers expected to occur during the three years of the study was calculatedto be 14.2. The registry lists 21 persons with lung cancer. This ratio (14.2 to 21) indicates aslight increase in lung cancer in the study area. However, since the numbers in the analysis arequite small, the increase could be due to random variation and not a true measure of elevated lung cancer in this community.

If this slight elevation in lung cancer represents a true increase, it is unlikely to be related to TCEexposure. Although inhalation exposure of mice to very high doses of TCE can cause an increase in lung tumors, the cancer risk estimate based on this evidence suggests that the lowlevels of exposure found near Fairchild would not result in an elevated rate of lung cancers. Inaddition, there is no human evidence associating lung cancer with TCE exposure.

There are several risk factors that may be responsible for elevated lung cancer rates within acommunity. The first is a possible differential rate in smoking. It is well known that those whosmoke have a greatly elevated risk of developing lung cancer. If the residents in this zip codearea smoke more than the those in the state as a whole, an elevated lung cancer rate would befound. Also, if the residents in this zip code area are more likely to work in industrial settings,they would also be more likely to have contaminated air exposures at work and would be morelikely to develop lung cancer than the residents in the state as a whole. Either of these factorswould be sufficient to cause the elevated rate seen in this population. Also, while not welldocumented, there could be other sources of air contaminants in this community, not related tothe base, that might effect the lung cancer rates.

To fully explain the cause of the elevated rate in this population would require a major study atconsiderable expense. Due to the limited size of the population, even with an extensive study, adefinitive answer may not be possible. Given these limitations, a study can only be done whenthere is known exposure to assist in designing and conducting the study. In this instance, theknown exposure does NOT give reason to expect increased lung cancer, and it can be safelyassumed that the increase is due to some other exposure that is currently unknown.

    All Cancers
The number of total cancers expected to occur during the three years of study was calculated tobe 80.9 The registry lists eighty persons with bladder cancer. This ratio (80.9 to 80) indicatesno likely increase in the occurrence of cancer in this community.

COMMUNITY HEALTH CONCERNS EVALUATION

Two public availability sessions were held by Washington State Department of Health (DOH) onJanuary 28, 1997, in order to gather community health concerns related to the site. One sessionwas held at the Deel Community Center at Fairchild from 2 to 4 p.m. and the other was held atthe Harmon Community Center from 7 to 9 p.m. These and other concerns communicated to DOH are listed below.

1. Resident expressed concern that her family is experiencing health effects related todrinking water containing trichloroethylene, nitrates and metals originating from theCraig Road Landfill. Of major concern has been the development of porphyria in three offour family members and possible developmental effects from in utero exposure.

The only contaminant of concern associated with the Craig Road Landfill that has been found inoff-base water supply wells is trichloroethylene (TCE). Exposure of residents to drinking watercontaminated with TCE originating from the Craig Road Landfill is discussed in the PathwaysAnalysis/Public Health Implications section of this document as completed exposure pathway 1a(page 16). Nitrate is also discussed in this pathway relative to the elevated levels found in theVietzke Village drinking water supply wells but is not thought to be related to the Craig Road Landfill.

Although elevated metals were detected in monitoring wells located on the landfill, samples fromwells located at the perimeter of the landfill show no substantial elevation of metals. In addition,metals analysis of Vietzke well samples taken in September 1982, July 1985 and May 1988 didnot show elevated metals. No metals have been identified as contaminants of concern inresidential drinking water.

Porphyrias are a group of diseases in which the synthesis of heme is disrupted causing excessprecursors of this molecule to be excreted in the urine. The heme molecule binds iron and is animportant part of hemoglobin and other heme-containing proteins. The symptoms of porphyriadepend on the type and severity of the disease and often include increased skin sensitivity to lightand abdominal pain. Clinical diagnoses classify the disease as chronic or acute involving the liveror blood. Porphyria can be inherited or acquired as a complication of liver disease and variousother conditions. The most common form of acquired porphyria is known as porphyria cutaneatarda which shows only skin sensitivity symptoms. 46

The ability of drugs and chemicals to induce urinary excretion of porphyrins is well known. Sucha response is not usually followed by other symptoms of the disease, however, unless the patientis genetically susceptible. This chemical-induced excretion of porphyrins without symptoms isconsidered to be a secondary porphyrinuria. Some chemicals that have been shown to induce thesymptoms associated with porphyria cutanea tarda include alcohol, hexachlorobenzene, dioxin,polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB) and heavy metals. Although there are many chemicals that havebeen shown to induce secondary porphyrinuria, no direct evidence could be found associatingTCE and nitrate with this ability. It appears that persons genetically susceptible are far morelikely to experience symptoms as a result of a chemical exposure. Diagnosing porphyria isaccomplished through careful measurement of enzyme activity and porphyrin levels in blood,urine, and stool. Those who are genetically susceptible will show consistently abnormal resultsfor both enzyme function and porphyrin levels. Enzyme function alone has not been validated asa means for diagnosis. 47

2. Resident expressed concern that many pregnant mothers who lived temporarily inVietzke Village were exposed to contaminated drinking water.

Vietzke Village residents living at the trailer park prior to July 18, 1989, were exposed to TCEthrough ingestion of drinking water and inhalation of TCE vapors off-gassing from drinkingwater. During initial sampling in July 1989, a maximum level of TCE at 80 ppb was detected inone of three blended wells (RW-9) serving this trailer park. Exposure via ingestion of drinkingwater ceased on July 18, 1989, when residents were supplied with bottled drinking water by thebase. All exposure ceased in early August 1989 when residents were connected to the basewater supply. Exposure to TCE in Vietzke drinking water is not expected to be a health risk forthe general population. However, the developing fetus of pregnant women exposed viaingestion, skin contact and inhalation of TCE in Vietzke drinking water could have been at a lowrisk for birth defects. Exposure of Vietzke Village residents to TCE in drinking water is evaluated in the Pathways Analysis/Public Health Implications section of this document as completed exposure pathway 1a.

3. Concern was expressed about the potential for residential drinking water wells locatedon Graham Road being impacted by contaminants originating from the Craig RoadLandfill.

This would be virtually impossible as the Craig Road Landfill is approximately 2.5 miles west ofGraham Road. Groundwater flows east/northeast from the Craig Road Landfill and, therefore,would not threaten residential wells on Graham Road. All sources on-base are downgradient ofGraham Road drinking water wells. This means that all contaminated sites are east of GrahamRoad and groundwater flows to the east. The site furthest to the west is SW-1 located at thesouthern end of Graham Road. No residential wells are located at this end of Graham Road. Although there are wells located near SW-1 on West Thorpe Road, they are also downgradientand have tested negative for VOCs in the past.

4. Resident is concerned about deformed livestock raised near the Fairchild dump (Craig Road Landfill).

The only important pathway of exposure here would be animals drinking water contaminated bythe Craig Road Landfill. No drinking water wells except the three supply wells at VietzkeVillage had levels of contaminants high enough to be of concern. Considering the highest levelof TCE ever detected in the primary supply well at Vietzke Village (79 ppb), none of theseeffects would be expected in livestock drinking this water. If the livestock in question werewatered with Vietzke Village well water prior to August 1989, there is a possibility that theanimals were exposed to higher TCE levels. The risks associated with this potentially higherlevel of TCE in the Vietzke wells is dependant on the length of the exposure and the level ofTCE.

5. Will toxins in water continue to spread?

The movement of contaminants in groundwater from a source depends upon several thingsincluding the size of the source, the contaminants in question and the flow of the groundwater. Contaminants in groundwater, primarily TCE, originating from the Craig Road Landfill are notlikely to migrate beyond the currently identified area. A treatment system currently operating atthe landfill should begin to reduce the source which will eventually cause the perimeter of theplume to recede. Groundwater flows east/northeast in the area near the landfill.

TCE in groundwater is also moving off-base from the wastewater lagoon area (WW-1). Recenttesting data indicate that levels of TCE are increasing in the area east of the WW-1 site. Lowlevels of TCE thought to be related to WW-1 area are currently being detected in West ThorpeRoad residential wells. The potential exists for these levels to increase. Contaminants ingroundwater at the FT-1 site do not appear to have moved off-base, but this potential does exist. Groundwater moves east/southeast in the area near the WW-1 and FT-1 sites. Treatmentsystems designed to restrict further movement of the plume are operating at both the WW-1 andFT-1 sites. In addition, West Thorpe Road area residential wells are currently being monitoredby the base through their Long Term Monitoring (LTM) plan. It is, therefore, likely that anyspread of contamination will be detected and actions taken, if necessary.

6. Potential source areas seem to exist on the property east of Rambo Road and thewastewater lagoons. The focus of the environmental sampling may be missing these areas.

This concern has been related to Fairchild, EPA and Ecology. The source of the contaminationis not well defined. The base is currently operating a groundwater treatment system in this area. Several extraction wells located east of the wastewater lagoons are designed to pullcontaminated groundwater into the system and remove volatile contaminants. In addition,monitoring wells in this area are sampled on a quarterly basis as part of the Long Term Monitoring plan operated by the base. These data provide current information on the movementof the contaminants in groundwater and allow the base to respond to changes, if necessary.

7. Concern was expressed that not all on-base and off-base source areas have been identified.

The base contractor conducted extensive document review and personnel interviews during theIRP Phase I investigation completed in 1985. In addition to the sites that were identified duringthis process, several other areas of concern have been identified through remedial investigations. Geological surveys, including ground-penetrating radar, have been conducted in order to identifyburied waste around the base. Many source areas of groundwater contamination have beenidentified some of which have been cleaned up by extracting and treating the groundwater. Other actions that have been carried out include removal of underground fuel storage tanks,highly contaminated soil, and oil/water separators.

Concerns about specific areas on and near the base have been received by DOH and passed on toEcology and EPA. Any evidence of hazardous waste in residential areas should be reported tothe Department of Ecology (Ecology). The Ecology site manager for the Fairchild Air ForceBase is Bill Harris, with the Toxics Cleanup Program, who can be reached at 360-407-7228. The Toxics Cleanup Program can also be reached at the Eastern Region Office at 509-456-7693. The Hazardous Waste Cleanup and Underground Storage Tank Hotline at 800-826-7716 is also available for reports of hazardous waste releases.

8. A resident expressed concern that munitions may have been dumped in residential areas.

Extensive records searches, interviews and environmental investigations have revealed manycontaminated sites of potential concern both on and off base. It is highly unlikely that liveammunition was dumped off base. It is possible, however, that some areas of potential concernmay have been missed. Any evidence of hazardous waste in residential areas should be reportedto the Department of Ecology (Ecology). The Ecology site manager for the Fairchild Air ForceBase is Bill Harris with the Toxics Cleanup Program who can be reached at 360-407-7228. TheToxics Cleanup Program can also be reached at the Eastern Region Office at 509-456-7693. The Hazardous Waste Cleanup and Underground Storage Tank Hotline at 800-826-7716 is alsoavailable for reports of hazardous waste releases.

9. Residents living near a jet fuel line are concerned that their drinking water well has been impacted. They have noted that the water is slimy.

The base currently uses a jet fuel called JP-8 and formerly used JP-4. The chemical content ofthese fuels are very similar. Jet fuel was originally transported to the bulk fuel storage area (sitePS-1) via rail car prior to the use of an underground commercial pipeline operated by theConoco Company. Truck transportation of fuel began in October 1996 and is expected to continue until a new pipeline is established with the Chevron Corporation.

The Conoco pipeline originates in Spokane and delivers fuel to aboveground storage tanks at theintersection between the railroad and Graham Road. The fuel was then transferred via anotherunderground pipeline (Yellowstone) to the bulk fuel storage area. The Yellowstone pipelinedelivered fuel to the base until May 1997. The Yellowstone line enters the base approximately2,400 feet northeast of the bulk fuel storage area. The fuel is stored in aboveground storagetanks where it is distributed via underground pipes or truck to the flight line area. The potentialfor an off-base leak in the Yellowstone fuel line was investigated. Based on a discussion with aConoco representative, there have been no leaks in the Yellowstone line. This conclusion wasreached based on measurement of fuel pumped and fuel received as well as occasional visualinspection. Questions about this fuel line can be addressed to Kim Varre (509-536-8414) at theConoco Company, Environmental Division, Spokane, Washington.

There are many instances of jet fuel spills and leaks along the flight line that have beeninvestigated. The potential for groundwater contamination at these sites moving to off-baseresidential wells is small since these sites are not at the base boundary. The only sites on-basethat are a threat to off-base groundwater are the Craig Road Landfill (SW-8), the wastewaterlagoons (WW-1) and fire training area (FT-1). These sites are discussed above as completedexposure pathways 1 and 2 and potential exposure pathway 1.

10. Concern was expressed about nitrate levels of 19 points.

DOH assumes that the nitrate level of concern is intended to read 19 parts per million (ppm). There are many sources of nitrate/nitrite contamination in drinking water wells including landfills,septic systems, and agricultural/livestock areas. Based on sampling of monitoring wells, theCraig Road Landfill does not appear to be a source of nitrate/nitrite contamination in residentialwells. The levels measured at the landfill are low and the nearest downgradient drinking waterwells currently in-use (Airway Heights public supply wells RW-1 and RW-4) have not shown elevated nitrate/nitrites.

In general, only shallow (dug) wells are at risk for nitrate/nitrite contamination. The deeper thewell, the lower the risk of problems. The major health hazard associated with nitrate/nitrites indrinking water is the development of methemoglobinemia in infants. This condition results indecreased oxygen delivered to body tissue by the blood and is directly linked to nitrite createdfrom the reduction of nitrate in the body. A nitrate level of 19 ppm exceeds EPA's MCL of 10ppm for nitrate in drinking water. The MCL for nitrite is set at 1 ppm. Existing evidence hasshown infants to be at risk for methemoglinemia at levels above 20 ppm. More recent evidencehas indicated that pregnant women are at risk for spontaneous abortions at levels above 20 ppm. The risk for these health effects at 19 ppm nitrate in drinking water could be of concerndepending on the amount nitrate/nitrite in the diet. Drinking water with nitrate or nitrite levels inexcess of their respective MCLs should not be used for the preparation of infant feedingformulas. Pregnant women should not drink water containing nitrate levels above the MCL. Ingeneral, drinking water with nitrate levels above the MCL should be used for non-drinking purposes only.

If you suspect an alternate source of nitrate/nitrite contamination and would like to have yourwell tested, a list of state certified drinking water analytical laboratories is available from DOH. Please contact Rob Duff toll-free at 1-888-586-9427 (1-888-5-TOXICS).

11. My well was tested in 1977 by Fairchild for nitrites and bacteria but not since. Whycan't I have my well tested again for contaminants associated with Fairchild? I want to know where to go next.

Nitrites and bacteria are not contaminants associated with the Fairchild Air Force Base. Thesewell contaminants are common with shallow (dug) wells and can cause adverse health effects ifpresent at high enough levels. If you suspect an alternate source of nitrate/nitrite or bacteriacontamination and would like to have your well tested, a list of state certified drinking wateranalytical laboratories is available from DOH. Please contact Rob Duff toll-free at 1-888-586-9427 (1-888-5-TOXICS).

12. What about dust from Fairchild and Hanford?

The majority of on-base soil (and dust) contamination is related to the various jet fuel spills andleaks. Soil contaminants from these spills are often referred to as total petroleum hydrocarbons(TPH). Some petroleum hydrocarbons are very volatile (VOCs) and will evaporate beforemigrating off base via dust to any substantial extent. Other less volatile petroleum hydrocarbonscould be blown off base in dust. However, the amount of petroleum hydrocarbons in the dust isnot expected to be a health concern.

Issues related to dust migration from Hanford can be addressed by contacting the HanfordHealth Information Network toll-free at 800-522-4446.

13. Storms move east to west over the landfill (Craig Road Landfill) and then over ourhomes. What is being released from Fairchild that may impact the air quality?

The Craig Road Landfill is located on the eastern perimeter of the base. Air contaminants fromthe landfill are not expected to reach levels of concern at the western perimeter of the base. Airemissions from the landfill are currently monitored by the Spokane County Air Pollution ControlAuthority (SCAPCA). SCAPCA uses this monitoring data in conjunction with computer airmodeling to estimate off-base levels of air contaminants that would result from landfill emissions. A discussion of the potential health hazard associated with Craig Road Landfill emissions isgiven in the Pathways Analysis section as potential exposure pathway 1b.

14. Will the air quality be affected by evaporation of contaminated water?

There is very little contamination of surface water on base. Volatile organic compounds (VOCs)in groundwater will not impact outdoor air but can travel to homes off base where it mayinfiltrate wells and off-gas into indoor air via showering and washing. The amount of VOCscurrently being detected in residential wells does not pose a health hazard via inhalation of VOCsoff-gassing from drinking water into indoor air.

VOCs in groundwater may also move into indoor air directly from the groundwater under yourhome. The potential health hazard from this pathway depends on several factors including theintegrity of the foundation, depth of contaminated groundwater, and concentration ofcontaminants in groundwater. The highest levels of VOCs in groundwater were found nearVietzke Village. However, very little of this contamination is near the surface and so poses noindoor air problem.

15. A resident complained about water turning yellow in the toilets and tub and would liketo have her well tested.

This type of staining is usually related to minerals in the water. Minerals are metal-containingchemicals that occur naturally in groundwater. Many of these metals are essential nutrients andbeneficial at low levels. Excess levels of metals in drinking water, however, have been associatedwith adverse health effects. The base is not considered to be a source of metals in residentialwells. If you would like to have your well tested, a list of state certified drinking water analysislaboratories is available from DOH. Please contact Rob Duff toll-free at 1-888-5TOXICS (888-586-9427).

16. The increased activity at the site (Craig Road Landfill) has created a noise problem.

The Craig Road Landfill has undergone substantial remedial activity. A groundwater treatmentsystem is currently operating at the landfill. According to the base, some noise is generated froma manhole cover where treated water merges prior to reinfiltration into the ground. The treatment system was designed to meet noise standards set by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA).

17. A resident is concerned that the certification requirement for operators of Fairchildwastewater treatment facilities was dropped. The resident feels that Ecology (WashingtonState Department of Ecology) should require this certification.

The wastewater treatment plant located near the Craig Road Landfill ceased operations inNovember 1993. The base no longer operates a wastewater treatment plant. Base wastewater isnow treated off base by the City of Spokane. If this question was intended to refer to the currentgroundwater pump-and-treat system at the Craig Road Landfill, DOH is aware of no certificationprogram requirements for operators at these facilities.

18. Several residents expressed concern that contaminants from the Graham RoadLandfill are leaching into underlying aquifers and nearby residential drinking water wells. The following concerns relate to that landfill. These concerns are addressed briefly below.

  • Leachate ponds have been noted to overflow and there is no on-site verification that EPA regulatory limits are being met.
  • Testing for TCLP (Toxicity Characteristic Leachate Procedure) lead should not be the only test due to the railroad right-of-way. Other materials are PCP (pentachlorophenol), petroleum distillates and other toxic substances that the railroad may have been transporting.
  • What kind of toxins have leached into the water?
  • Resident would like to see Fairchild (Fairchild Air Force Base) involved with testing of the Sanifill (Graham Road) landfill.
  • Fairchild is spending millions of dollars to clean up lesser contamination than is coming from the Graham Road Landfill.
  • Concern was expressed that toxic waste including incinerator ash and medical waste was going into the Graham Road Landfill.
  • Concern was expressed that future expansion of the Graham Road Landfill would increase the potential for contamination of nearby residential drinking water wells.
  • We already have one Superfund site. Why have another with the landfill (Graham Road)?
  • What happens to the people whose water may be affected by the other dump site (Graham Road Landfill)?

The Graham Road Recycling and Disposal Facility (GRRDF) is located approximately 1000 feetwest of Fairchild on Graham Road. The GRRDF is not operated by the base. It is a privatelandfill currently permitted to accept demolition debris. Some non-hazardous petroleum-contaminated soils from the base have been sent to GRRDF. The landfill is lined andgroundwater is monitored quarterly via sampling of several monitoring wells. A proposedexpansion of the landfill is currently being evaluated by the Spokane Regional Health District(formerly Spokane County Health District) which is the lead agency for all issues related to the landfill.

The obvious exposure pathway of concern is the possibility that materials buried in the landfillwill leach into groundwater and contaminate nearby residential drinking water wells. DOH willreview past quarterly groundwater monitoring reports and an upcoming environmental impactstatement for the proposed expansion of the GRRDF. The conclusions of this review will beaddressed separately in a letter to the West Plains Neighborhood Association as this issue doesnot fall within the scope of this document. For more information, please call Robert Duff at 1-888-5TOXICS (1-888-586-9427).

PUBLIC HEALTH ACTION PLAN

The Public Health Action Plan (PHAP) for the Fairchild Air Force Base is outlined below. Thepurpose of the PHAP is to ensure that this health assessment not only identifies public healthhazards, but provides a plan of action designed to prevent or mitigate adverse human healtheffects resulting from exposure to hazardous substances in the environment. Included is acommitment on the part of ATSDR and DOH to ensure that these actions are taken.

Actions Taken:

  1. Fairchild has taken several remedial actions in order to address contamination in soil and groundwater. Some of these actions are ongoing and include soil and groundwater treatment at the Craig Road Landfill, wastewater lagoons and former fire training area. Long-term monitoring of soil and groundwater is ongoing at various areas of the base. The base also coordinates residential well sampling in the West Thorpe Road area. A comprehensive summary of remedial actions taken by the base can be found in Appendix B Table 1.
  2. Fairchild supplied bottled water to the residents of Vietzke Village trailer park following initial detection in July 1989 of TCE in the water supply servicing this park. All residents of the trailer park were connected to the base water supply by early August 1989. The base also contracted for the abandonment of the Vietzke Village supply wells which was completed between May and June 1993.
  3. Fairchild currently reviews all new on-base development proposals to ensure that no unacceptable exposure to previously identified environmental contamination will occur as a result of such development. The USAF Base Realignment and Closure Program will conduct an environmental review prior to the transfer of any land should the base, or any portions of the base, close in the future.
  4. Fairchild conducted surface soil sampling for lead in November 1997 at the Warrior Park recreation area in response to a recommendation made in the Draft for Public Comment release of this health assessment.
  5. DOH held two public availability sessions on January 28, 1997, in order to gather community health concerns related to the Fairchild Air Force Base.
  6. DOH conducted a site visit of the Fairchild Air Force Base in order to identify any potentialexposure pathways to contaminants in soil, air, water or food on or near the base.

Actions Proposed:

  1. Fairchild will analyze monitoring well samples for metals at the WW-1 and FT-1 sites to ensure that metals are not a source of potential off-base groundwater contamination.
  2. DOH will hold a community meeting in order to explain the results of the Public Health Assessment and the nature of the risk posed by contaminants originating from Fairchild Air Force Base.
  3. DOH will notify proprietors of land known to be in groundwater contamination zones thatany development of groundwater on their property may not be suitable for use as a domesticsupply.

PREPARERS OF REPORT

Robert M. Duff
Public Health Advisor
Washington Department of Health
Office of Toxic Substances

ATSDR REGIONAL REPRESENTATIVES

Greg Thomas
Senior Regional Representative
Office of Regional Operations

ATSDR TECHNICAL REVIEW

Carole Hossom
Environmental Health Scientist
Federal Facilities Assessment Branch
Division of Health Assessment and Consultation

Diane Jackson
Environmental Engineer
Federal Facilities Assessment Branch
Division of Health Assessment and Consultation

REFERENCES

1. JRB Associates. Installation Restoration Program Phase I - Records Search. 92ndBombardment Wing (Heavy). Fairchild Air Force Base, Washington. Prepared for : Strategic AirCommand, Offutt, Nebraska. January 1985.

2. Parsons Engineering Science Inc. Management Action Plan. Fairchild Air Force Base.Spokane, Washington. Prepared for: 92nd Civil Engineering Squadron, Environmental Flight,Fairchild Air Force Base. January 24, 1996.

3. Science Applications International Corporation. Remedial Investigation Report. Craig RoadLandfill for Fairchild Air Force Base, Washington. Prepared for: Headquarters Strategic AirCommand, Offutt, Air Force Base, Nebraska. April 1992.

4. Haliburton NUS. Remedial Investigation Report Priority One Operable Units: LF-01 (SW-1);SD-05 (IS-1); SS-18 (PS-2); SS-28 (PS-6); SS-27 (PS-8); WP-03 (WW-1); FT-04 (FT-1) forFairchild Air Force Base 92 SPTG/DEV, Fairchild, WA 99011. Prepared for: Headquarters AirCommand (HQ ACC/CEVR) Langley Air Force Base, Virginia 23665-5542. February 1993.

5. ICF Technology Incorporated. Remedial Investigation for Priority 2a Sites at Fairchild AirForce Base, Washington. Final. Prepared for: USAF/AMC, Air Force Center for EnvironmentalExcellence, Environmental Services Office, Environmental Restoration Division (AFCEE/ERD),Brooks Air Force Base, TX 78235-6000. February 1995.

6. EA Engineering, Science, and Technology. Site Investigation Report for Eight Areas ofConcern. Sites SW-6 (RW-11) and SW-13 (OT-15), and Orphan Trichloroethene Plumes. Fairchild Air Force Base, Washington. Prepared for: USAF/AMC, Air Force Center forEnvironmental Excellence, Environmental Services Office, Environmental Restoration Division(AFCEE/ERD), Brooks Air Force Base, TX 78235-6000. November 1996.

7. Fairchild Restoration Advisory Board. Minutes for Regular Meeting of November 14, 1996. February 13, 1997.

8. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Demographics for Fairchild Air ForceBase. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Atlanta, GA.

9. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. CDC Wonder Database Query on U.S. Census.May 5, 1997. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA.

10. Environmental Protection Agency. Toxic Release Inventory. March 1997.

11. R&A Technical Services. Draft Wellhead Protection Plan. Fairchild Air Force Base,Washington. Prepared for: Department of the Air Force, Air Mobility Command, Fairchild AirForce Base, Washington 99011. November 1996.

12. Teleconference. Robert Duff (DOH) and Steven Holderby (Spokane Regional HealthDistrict). Date not available.

13. Teleconference. Robert Duff (DOH) and Dan D. at Department of Public Works, City ofMedical Lake, Washington. April 4, 1997.

14. Teleconference. Robert Duff (DOH) and Jim Stockwell of the Installation RestorationProgram office, Fairchild Air Force Base, Washington. April 9, 1997.

15. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Toxicological profile fortrichloroethylene: Draft for Public Comment. August 1995. Atlanta: U.S. Department of Healthand Human Services.

16. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS2). November 1, 1997.

17. Amman HM. Nitrogen and health. Proceedings of the 8th Northwest On-Site Conference,University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, September 18-19, 1995.

18. National Research Council. Nitrate and Nitrite in Drinking Water. National Academy Press,Washington D.C. 1995.

19. LaGrange County Health Department, Indiana. Spontaneous abortions possibly related toingestion of nitrate-contaminated well water--LaGrange County, Indiana, 1991-1994. MorbMortal Wkly Rep 1996;45(26):569-72.

20. Dorsch MM, Scragg RK, McMichael AJ, Baghurst PA and Dyer KF. CongenitalMalformations and Maternal Drinking Water Supply in Rural South Australia: A Case-controlStudy. Am J Epidemiol 1984;119(4):473-86.

21. Fan AM and Steinberg VE. Health implications of nitrate and nitrite in drinking water: Anupdate on methemoglobinemia occurrence and reproductive and developmental toxicity. RegulToxicol Pharmacol 1996;23(1):35-43.

22. Arbuckle TE, Sherman GJ, Corey PN, Walters D, Lo B. Water nitrates and cns birthdefects: A population-based case-control study. Arch Environ Health 1988;43(2):162-7.

23. Superfund Technical Support Center. Risk assessment issue paper for: carcinogenicityinformation for trichloroethylene (TCE) (CASRN 79-01-6). National Center for EnvironmentalAssessment. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Cincinnati, Ohio.

24. International Agency for Research on Cancer. IARC Monographs on the evaluation ofcarcinogenic risks to humans: volume 63, dry cleaning, some solvents and other industrialchemicals. IARC. Lyon, France. 1995.

25. Steve Goemell of Airway Heights, Department of Public Works facsimile to Robert Duff(DOH). Public drinking water analysis report from Anatek Labs, Inc. for well #7. April 1, 1997.

26. Arthur S. Mell, Vice President, Scafco Corporation letter to Mr. Bill Harris, Department ofEcology, State of Washington. February 8, 1993.

27. William W. Harris, Site Manager, Toxics Cleanup Program letter to Mr. Arthur S. Mell, VicePresident, Finance, Scafco Corporation. February 24, 1993.

28. EA Engineering, Science, and Technology. Quarterly residential ground water sampling:Event No. 34. Fairchild Air Force Base, Washington. Bellevue, WA. April 1997.

29. AAA Laboratories. Fairchild easement study. Prepared for: 92nd Civil Engineering Squadron,Environmental Flight, Fairchild Air Force Base. October 12, 1995.

30. Toxics Cleanup Program. Natural background soil metals concentrations in WashingtonState. Washington State Department of Ecology. October 1994.

31. Toxics Cleanup Program. Interim interpretive and policy statement cleanup of totalpetroleum hydrocarbons (TPH). Washington State Department of Ecology. January 1997.

32. Washington Department of Health. Office of Toxic Substances. Files.

33. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS2). May 1,1997.

34. ICF Technology Incorporated. Limited Field Investigation Report. Priority 2 Sites FairchildAir Force Base. Final. Prepared for: Headquarters Air Combat Command (HQ ACC/DE)Langley Air Force Base, Virginia 23665-5542. September 25, 1992.

35. Fairchild Air Force Base. Gary Jespersen correspondence to Frederick Zitterkopf. March19, 1992.

36. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Bob Williams (ATSDR) letter to GaryJespersen (Fairchild). May 12, 1992.

37. Environmental Protection Agency. Uptake Biokinetic Model for Lead. Version 0.99D. March 8, 1994.

38. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Toxicological profile for lead. April1993. Atlanta: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

39. Dawson BV, Johnson PD, Goldberg SJ, Ulreich JB. Cardiac teratogenesis of halogenated-contaminated drinking water. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1993;21:1466-72.

40. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Public Health Assessment, U.S. MarineCorps Camp Lejeune Military Reservation, Camp Lejeune, Onslow County, North Carolina,CERCLIS NO. NC6170022580. August 4, 1997.

41. Bove FJ, Fulcomer MC, Klotz JB, Esmart J, Dufficy EM, Savrin JE. Public drinking watercontamination and birth outcomes. Am J Epidemiol 1995;141(9):850-62.

42. Lagakos SW, Wessen BJ, Zelen M. An anlaysis of contaminated well water and healtheffects in Woburn, Massachusetts. Journal of the American Statistical Association 1986;81(395):583-596.

43. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. National Exposure Registry. Trichloroethylene (TCE) Subregistry. Baseline Technical Report. Atlanta: U.S. Department ofHealth and Human Services, May 1993.

44. Gist G, Burg JR. Trichloroethylene - a review of the literature from a health effectsperspective. Toxicol Ind Hlth 1995;11(3):253-307.

45. Micromedex, Inc. Hazardous Substances Databank. Vol. 31 Expires 1/31/97.

46. Hahn MH, Bonkovsky HL. Multiple chemical sensitivity syndrome and porphyria. ArchIntern Med. 1997;157: 281-85.

47. Burton BT. Chemically-induced porphyria report of an epidemic. J of Toxicol Clin Toxicol.1996;34(5):609-610.


Next Section      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. #