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

PUBLIC HEALTH ASSESSMENT

NAVAL AIR STATION WHIDBEY ISLAND (AULT FIELD AND SEAPLANE BASE)
OAK HARBOR, ISLAND COUNTY, WASHINGTON


PATHWAYS ANALYSES

To determine whether people are exposed to contaminants migrating from a site, ATSDR evaluatesthe environmental and human components that lead to human exposure. A pathways analysisconsists of five elements: source of contamination (e.g., OU1 landfills), an environmental medium(media) in which contaminants may be present or from which contaminants may migrate (e.g.,movement of contaminants through groundwater), a human exposure point (e.g., contaminatedprivate wells), a human exposure route (e.g., ingestion, inhalation, or dermal contact), and apotentially exposed population (e.g., people using private well water).

If an exposure pathway cannot be eliminated, ATSDR categorizes it as a completed pathway orpotential pathway. Completed exposure pathways exist when the five elements of a pathway linkthe source of contamination to an exposed population. Pathways are considered 'potential' when oneof the five elements is missing, but could exist. Potential exposure pathways exist when informationon one or more of the five elements is missing. Completed or potential pathways can indicate thatexposure or potential exposure to a contaminant could have occurred in the past, could be occurringnow, or could occur in the future. Table 22 identifies the potential exposure pathways. Table 23estimates the number of exposed persons or potentially exposed persons for the identified exposurepathways.

A. Completed Exposure Pathways

After review of the available information, no completed exposure pathways were identified. Environmental sampling of soil and sediment, groundwater, surface water and food chain mediashows contamination exists at certain sites; however, the existing information does not indicate thereis an exposed population. Although groundwater is contaminated on the site in Area 6, ATSDR hasno evidence that any populations used or are using the contaminated groundwater from the aquifers beneath Area 6.

B. Potential Exposure Pathways

From the available data, Table 22 was developed; it lists the potential exposure pathways,environmental media, point of exposure, route of exposure, and potentially exposed populations atNAS. Table 23 lists the estimated populations for those pathways developed. These potentialexposure pathways lack sampling data, have no exposed population, or have limited information onthe potentially exposed population. Until more information becomes available, ATSDR cannot fully assess these pathways or their importance.

Table 22.

NAS Whidbey Island Potential Exposure Pathways
Pathway NameExposure Pathway Elements Time
SourceEnvironmentalMediaPoint of ExposureRoute of ExposureExposed Population
Surface Soil* OU1, OU2,
OU3, OU4, OU5
Surface Soil OU1, OU2,
OU3, OU4, OU5
Ingestion
Dermal contact
Base population who work, hunt, hike,jog, walk, bicycle, motorcycle in thoseareas Past
Present
Future
Sediment*OU2, OU3, OU4, OU5SedimentOU1, OU2, OU3, OU4, OU5 Ingestion
Dermal contact
Base population, general public whowork, hunt, fish, hike, boat, play instreams, wetland and ocean areas Past
Present
Future
Subsurface Soil*OU1, OU2, OU4, OU5, AultField Central CoreSubsurface Soil OU1, OU2, OU4,
OU5, Ault Field Central Core
Ingestion
Dermal contact
Base personnel, construction workerswho dig or drill into soil. Past
Present
Future
Surface water*OU1, OU2, OU3, OU5, AultField Central CoreSurface water OU1, OU2, OU3,
OU5, Ault Field Central Core
Ingestion
Inhalation
Dermal contact
Base population, general public who hunt,fish, hike, boat, play in streams, wetlandand ocean areas Past
Present
Future
On-site
Groundwater
OU1, OU2, OU3, OU4, OU5,Ault Field Central Core AreaGroundwater Wells in OU1, OU2, OU3 OU4, OU5, and Ault Field Central Core Area Ingestion
Inhalation
Dermal contact
Base personnel who drink or shower withwater from contaminated wellsFuture
Off-Base Private wells,Public wellsOU1GroundwaterWells at residences and otherbuildings Ingestion
Inhalation
Dermal contact
Residents, motel guests who drink orshower with water from contaminatedwellsFuture
Food ChainOU4, Crescent Harbor & OakHarbor Shellfish
Seaweed
Fish and Shellfish from Crescentand Oak Harbors, Seaweed fromCrescent HarborIngestion Shellfish, fish and seaweed eaters Past
Present
Future
Air* OU1, OU5,
Ault Field Central Core
Soil GasOU1, Ault Field Central Core,Area 52InhalationBase personnel, construction workers,residents who work in or live near thoseareas Past
Present
Future
OU1-Area 6AmbientArea 6, Off-site residences nearArea 6InhalationBase personnel, construction workers,residents who work in or live near thoseareas Past
Present
Future
*Several proposed actions (removal, remedial, institutional controls, etc.,) may eliminate this pathway. The text provides additional information on potentially eliminated pathways from specific OUs.


Table 23.

Estimated Population for Potential Exposure Pathways
Potentially Exposed Populations Affected by a Potential Exposure Pathway* For:
Location(b) Estimated Persons VOC(c) SVOC(d) Metals PCB(e) and Pesticides PAH(f)
Base population who hike, jog, ride motorcycles; personnel, contractors who drill, excavate, construct in OU1, OU2, OU3, OU4, OU5, Ault Field Central Core Area 5000(g) Soil, Air (Soil gas) Soil Soil Soil Soil
Base personnel and contractors, General Public
(OU1, OU2, OU3, OU4, OU5, Oak Harbor, Crescent Harbor)
Unknown Sediment Sediment Sediment Sediment
Base personnel and contractors
(OU1, OU2, OU4, OU5)
5000 Surface water Surface water Surface water Surface water Surface water
Base personnel and contractors
(OU1, OU2, OU4, OU5, Ault Field Central Core, Seaplane Base)
Unknown Groundwater Air Groundwater Groundwater Groundwater Groundwater
Off-base Residents
(near OU1(h))
>10,000(i) Private Well Private Well Private Well
General Public 4800-9200(j) Shellfish, fish, seaweed

Surface Soil Pathway

Past, present, and future ingestion of and dermal contact with soil and dust are potential exposureroutes for workers and recreational users. Transport mechanisms for area contaminants are wind,surface runoff, flooding, excavation and construction, and fugitive dust from vehicular traffic. Eachsurface soil pathway is a potential one, because the exposed population is missing or unknown. There is no evidence that exposures occurred or are occurring.

OU1. OU1, Areas 5 and 6 are sparsely vegetated. Gravel roads criss-cross the area, which is fencedwith locked gates, and the area is patrolled. Only authorized personnel are allowed on site. Peoplewho could potentially be exposed include base personnel, contract personnel, and remedial workers. Potential exposure to site contaminants would be limited to occupational exposures and wouldrepresent only incidental, short-term exposures. The removal and remedial actions combined withinstitutional controls (fencing and deed restrictions) may eliminate this pathway at Area 6. At Area5, the proposed land use restrictions and monitoring may eliminate this pathway. Base workers maystill be at risk depending upon their exposure to media contaminants from other areas on NAS.

OU2 Area 2 and 3 landfills and the surrounding area are grass covered (8), so surface soil is notlikely to be a significant route of exposure through ingestion or dermal contact for base personneland residents. The proposed land-use restrictions (posting of signs, permanent restrictive covenants)and groundwater and surface water monitoring at Area 2/3 may eliminate this pathway at that area.

At Area 4, Walker Barn Storage Area, the Current Situation Report (CSR) concluded that surfacesoil over the entire area was contaminated with low level PCBs (2). A picnic area is to the east ofArea 4 at an unspecified distance behind some trees (8). People picnic, jog, walk dogs, and ridemotorcycles on paths that encircle Area 4 (8). Most of the areas are sparsely covered with grass andvegetation. Trails and off-pavement roads are dirt or gravel. Soil ingestion and dermal contact arepotential exposure routes for people who use the area. Base residents who entered the contaminatedarea before it was fenced may have been incidentally exposed to PCB-contaminated soils. ThePCB-contaminated soil area is fenced with barbed wire, eliminating present exposures tocontaminated soil. Future exposure may be eliminated, since the Navy has proposed removing thecontaminated soil from the area (30).

At Area 14, during the 1987 CSR soil sampling, pesticides, herbicides, and PCBs were not detected; however, a 10 by 130-foot area exists where most vegetation is dead (2). During the site visit in 1991, ATSDR noticed that the area was not fenced; however, the area was fenced in 1992 after preliminary RI/FS sampling and analysis detected the presence of pesticides in surface soil (41). Compositing of the samples during the CSR may have diluted concentrations below detection limits. Not all pesticides discarded at Area 14 were included in previous analyses (8). The 1992 RI confirmed contamination by pesticides and herbicides. Area 14 is next to an active grounds equipment maintenance facility, Building 2555; therefore, recreational use of this area is not likely to occur. Workers in Building 2555 who may have entered Area 14 before it was fenced could have been exposed in the past to pesticide contamination through incidental soil ingestion and dermal contact; however, this pathway would represent only incidental, short-term exposures. Future exposures may be eliminated, since a removal action is planned (30).

Area 29 in OU2 is near several paths and roads that are used for jogging (9). The 1-acre area is in agrassy region, unpaved except a 20 by 20-foot concrete burn pad, which is bordered with trees to thewest. There are former waste liquid surface impoundments north and east of the area (8). ThePAHs detected were a byproduct of incomplete combustion of fuels, solvents, and oils (2). The areawas fenced in 1992 after RI sampling and analysis detected pesticides, PAHs, and metals in soil(41). Soil ingestion and dermal contact are past, present, and future potential exposure routes forbase residents who jog or hike in the area. Available information is not sufficient on potentiallyexposed populations to confirm completed pathways. Available information shows that thispathway would represent only incidental, short-term exposures. The Navy has proposed removingthe contaminated soil from the area (30).

Since Area 4, 14, and 29 are currently fenced, presently exposures are eliminated, and proposed soilremoval actions will eliminate this pathway in the future.

OU3. At Area 16, Runway Ditches, exposure to contaminated soil is limited, since runway areasare restricted to flight-line personnel. The CSR suggested that soils were contaminated from pastfire fighting school operations. The raised levels of lead may be from leaded fuels (2). HigherPAHs from the incomplete combustion of fuels, solvents, and oils may be detected downwind of theburn pad. Access to Area 31, Runway Fire School, is restricted by its location near the runway;however, the area is close to the base boundary. There are residences along the fenced boundary. Contaminants from Area 31 could migrate to agricultural areas on and off base via fugitive dustsand overland flow. Runoff from Area 31 flows to the runway ditches. Base personnel authorized tobe in the runway areas could be exposed to lead, PCB, and PAHs by incidental ingestion. Soil is apast, present, and future potential pathway because the exposed population is not known, and areason and off site are not fully characterized. However, most of OU3 is restricted, so this pathwayexists only for authorized base workers. Off-site migration of contaminants is a potential for thearea north-northwest of Area 31 (a resident community) from the fire training area. Availableinformation shows that this pathway would represent only incidental, short-term exposures.

OU4. There is little information on surface soil contamination at OU4, Seaplane Base. Samplescollected in shallow soil of unspecified depths from the 1992 RI show high levels of VOCs, SVOCs,pesticides, PCBs, carcinogenic PAHs, and metals. If further information confirms the presence ofthose contaminants in surface soil, then the public could be exposed to hazardous levels of thosecontaminants through ingestion and dermal contact. Since Seaplane Base is an open base, theexposure of children to these contaminants is a concern. Since none of the areas under investigationexcept Area 44 is fenced, exposures could have occurred in the past or may be occurring in thepresent and future. The exposed population is not known, and areas on site are not fullycharacterized; therefore, ATSDR cannot determine if exposures are of concern. The removal actionat Area 44 will eliminate this pathway. The proposed institutional controls at Area 48/49 mayeliminate this pathway. The remedial actions including fencing, site use limitations, monitoring, andsome removal of contaminated media may eliminate this pathway at Area 39 and Area 41.

The northwest corner of Seaplane Base, Area 46, Transformer Substation, is next to a paved footpath that leads to Olympic View Elementary School. Area 46 was eliminated as an investigationarea in the IAS in 1984, because composite soil samples showed PCBs were less than the 1 ppb. The depth of the soil sampled was not given. The area is next to a paved road and is mostly coveredwith grass. While this does not appear to be a hazard, children walk through or near this area, andthe area was not fully characterized. The reason ATSDR questions the characterization of Area 46is that composite samples taken from Area 4 on Ault Field during the 1988 CSR showed PCB levelsthree orders of magnitude less than in the subsequent RI sampling of surface soil. Past, present, andfuture exposure from ingestion and dermal contact is a possibility. Available information shows thatthis pathway would represent only incidental, short-term exposures.

Sediment Pathway

Sediment represents a past, present, and future potential pathway through ingestion and dermalcontact. Sediment transport mechanisms include soil erosion, runoff, leaching, volatilization,suspension and resuspension, and biologic intake. Contaminants detected above comparison valuesinclude heavy metals, particularly lead and arsenic, pesticides, and PAHs There are unrestrictedwetlands near OU2, Areas 2 and 3 (8). The playground 75-feet southeast of Area 14 near adrainage ditch is a potential exposure point for children. Drainage from ditches and wetland areaseventually flows into the waters around Ault Field, particularly Dugualla Bay. People who hike,hunt, fish, and boat in Dugualla Bay are potentially exposed to contaminants. Children who wadeor play in these areas are also potentially exposed. While cold water temperatures may discourageactivity in this area, it may not restrict activity. OU3 contaminants from the flight line flow to thelagoon near Dugualla Bay and are the potential contaminant sources for Dugualla Bay. OU1 andOU2 contaminants flow into OU3 via surface water drainage ditches and could possibly contributecontamination to OU3. At OU4 on Seaplane Base, a playground is near a drainage ditch within 300feet of three areas where contaminants were detected above comparison values. The potentiallyexposed population includes children, but there is no evidence that children were present at the pointof exposure. Available information shows that this pathway would represent only incidental, short-term exposures. However, the proposed remedial soil actions may eliminate this pathway in OUs 2,3 and 4. OU5 is a relatively new OU and the nature and extent of contamination is incomplete.

Subsurface Soil Pathway

While subsurface soils are contaminated at NAS, they would only be of concern if exposed througherosion, construction, or remediation. Past, present, and future ingestion and dermal contact withcontaminated soil are potential exposure routes for workers and recreational users. Exposure forbase personnel and contractors could occur during excavation and construction, such as landfilltrenching operations at Area 6 in OU1. Remedial workers would presumably wear personalprotective equipment while working in areas suspected to be contaminated.

During the site visit, ATSDR observed that the ground near Area 52 slopes steeply to the beach. Subsurface soil could be exposed at the beach and provides a potential ingestion and dermal contactpathway for recreational users of the beach and base personnel. Available information is insufficientto confirm completed pathways on the potentially exposed population. Available information showsthat this pathway would represent only incidental, short-term exposures. However, the proposedremedial soil actions may eliminate this pathway in OUs 2, 3 and 4. OU5 is a relatively new OUand the nature and extent of contamination is incomplete. Some of the areas at Ault Field CentralCore are no action sites. Removal actions will be done at several other areas (see Hazardous WasteEvaluation Study) (HWES). The proposed remedial actions may eliminate this pathway.

Surface Water Pathway

Past, present, and future ingestion and dermal contact are potential exposure routes for workers andrecreational users at surface water locations. Transport mechanisms for area contaminants areoverland flow, volatilization, sedimentation, and biological uptake.

OU1. Surface water sampling identified heavy metals and 1,1-dichloroethene in OU1. OU1 areasare fenced and patrolled, limiting contact to base personnel and contractors authorized to be on site.

OU2. Soils are low permeability soils that encourage runoff. Surface water from OU2 eventuallydrains to Dugualla Bay, but the five mile or more distance to the bay provides opportunity reductionof contaminants by dilution, sorption, and volatilization. The distance also provides opportunity forcontact with the potentially exposed population through recreational use.

OU3. Petroleum hydrocarbons and heavy metals were detected in surface soils and sediment. Nosurface water analysis was done. The runway ditches have oil/water separators; however, accordingto the NAS Wildlife Biologist, high flow conditions would make the separators useless. Visualobservation during the site visit, showed that some oil/water separators needed some maintenance tobe effective. The oil/water separators would not prevent dissolved hydrocarbon contaminants andethylene glycol from flowing through the runway area and the agricultural fields to the lagoon atDugualla Bay. Ingestion and dermal contact are exposure routes for base flight-line personnel andoff-base residents who use the stream for irrigation, the lagoon, and Dugualla Bay.

Contamination at OU3, Area 16, could come from Area 7 (Old Waste Storage Tanks), Area 13(Fuel Farm 3), Area 18 (Ault Field Nose Hangers), and Area 19 (Fuel Truck Depot) (1);contamination could have migrated via surface water or groundwater to the runway ditches. Allsurface runoff from the Central Core Area, which may contain contaminants from the active aircraftmaintenance and operational areas, discharges to the runway ditches that discharge to the lagoon atDugualla Bay.

OU5. Past, present, or future exposures to VOCs and metals in surface water could occur throughingestion and dermal contact. Base residents and base personnel who use the beach for recreationalactivities could contact contaminated surface water if they walked or waded in the marsh area or thestream, which runs from the marsh to the beach. Contaminants in sediment, soil, and groundwatercould be released into the surface water or the Strait of Juan de Fuca. The waters of Strait of Juande Fuca are cold, and looked rough during the site visit and could discourage swimming. However,the beach is not posted or fenced, and people could swim if so inclined. Exposures through ingestionand dermal contact from both surface water and sediment could occur.

In the OUs discussed above information is insufficient to confirm completed pathways for thepotentially exposed population. Available information shows that those pathways would representonly incidental, short-term exposures. However, the proposed remedial soil actions may eliminatethis pathway in OUs 1, 2 and 3. OU5 is a relatively new OU and the nature and extent ofcontamination is incomplete. Some of the areas at Ault Field Central Core are no action sites. Removal actions will be done at several other areas (see HWES). The proposed remedial actionsmay eliminate this pathway.

Groundwater Pathway

An on-site groundwater pathway does not exist in OU1, OU2, OU3, or OU4, because groundwateris not used for drinking water, irrigation, or industrial purposes. Groundwater seepage maytransport contaminants to the drainage ditch that connects to the runway ditches and ultimately toDugualla Bay. At OU4, Seaplane Base, Base Well #5 is upgradient of OU4 areas underinvestigation.

The sources of VOCs and metals above comparison values in the intermediate and deep aquifers atOU1 are not known. The shallow and intermediate aquifers could connect west of OU1 near GoldieRoad (6). If the connection exists, a possible route is available for shallow aquifer contaminants tomigrate to the intermediate aquifer. Further sampling is necessary to characterize the contaminationin those aquifers. The Navy has proposed that some metal contamination detected in groundwater isa result of suspension of soil in the water.

A past, present, and future potential pathway exists at OU5, Area 52, Jet Engine Test Cell. TheNavy says that the detection of xylenes in intertidal groundwater samples west of the test cell showsthat groundwater contaminants are being discharged to the strait (34). Free fuel product, which isfloating on the groundwater, could also be discharged into the Strait of Juan de Fuca. A potentialexists for human exposure to free and dissolved fuel constituents discharging in the intertidal zone(Appendix A, Figure 14). The potentially exposed population includes base workers at the Test Celland other base personnel who walk or use the beach area for recreation. Exposure would be throughinhalation of VOCs and dermal contact. Groundwater is not used in this area for drinking,agricultural, or industrial purposes.

In the Ault Field Central Core Area, a potential pathway may exist in the future if Base Well #4becomes contaminated, and the Navy uses it as an alternative source of drinking water. Base Well#4 is not currently used for drinking water and is not affected by contaminants detected inmonitoring wells at this time. Contamination of Base Well #4 would not pose a threat to publichealth unless the well is used for domestic or industrial purposes. The route of exposure would beingestion, inhalation, and dermal contact, and the potentially exposed population would be basepersonnel and residents.

Off-site Public and Private Well Pathway

At OU1 Area 6, a future potential pathway exists because there are off-site public and private drinking water wells in the direction in which the plume is moving. Most of those wells are in the aquifer of concern. VOCs and heavy metals are the contaminants detected above comparison values. Current data suggest that groundwater contamination has migrated south and west of Area 6; however, sampling data show that the contaminants have not reached private drinking water wells around the perimeter of Area 6 landfill. Routes of exposure would be ingestion, inhalation, and dermal contact, and the potentially exposed population would be people living in residences near Area 6 served by public or private wells in the shallow aquifer. As part of the site remediation plan, the Navy connected the homes and other sites served by wells to the city of Oak Harbor's water supply system. If the Navy's plan is successful, the possibility of people drinking contaminated groundwater will be eliminated. Two well owners are now connected to city water and others will be connected when agreements with the well owners are negotiated (42). The planned Interim Remedial Action may eliminate this pathway.

Future installation of wells near Area 6 should not occur because Washington State regulationsprohibit construction of wells within one mile of landfills (42).

Food Chain Pathway

A past, present, and future food chain potential pathway exists because metal, pesticide, and PCB contaminants can bioaccumulate or bioconcentrate in the food chain. Shellfish and seaweed bioaccumulate contaminants such as lead, cadmium, chromium, and nickel. The single round of sampling of shellfish detected these metals in several species. The potentially exposed population would be those residents who ingest shellfish and seaweed. Seaweed has an affinity for (biophilic) heavy metals, particularly, mercury, arsenic, and cadmium; lead also could be absorbed (43). Those metals were detected in sediment in Crescent Harbor and Oak Harbor. This pathway would be of concern for people who consume shellfish and the Asian population that is most likely to consume seaweed and shellfish. Available data are insufficient and therefore cannot confirm completed pathways. Shellfish were sampled during the 1992 RI for OU3 and OU4; ATSDR evaluate this pathway using the new data and determined that people would not be exposed to levels of contamination that would be of health concern. A further evaluation of this pathway is in the Public Health Implications section that follows.

In 1992, the Island County Health Department (ICHD) asked the Navy to restrict shellfishing alongthe shores of Crescent Harbor near Areas 48/49 because the coliform count in Crescent Harborexceeded applicable water quality criteria. The high coliform count was a result of a sewage spillfrom the Seaplane Base wastewater treatment plant. Shellfishing is restricted from the seaplaneramps near the Navy Exchange for an unknown distance past Areas 48/49. Current water qualitymonitoring of Crescent Harbor indicate that coliform counts still exceed applicable water qualitycriteria. The shellfish restriction, as long as it is in effect, appears to eliminate the potential forexposure to hazardous chemicals in shellfish taken from Crescent Harbor.

NAS leases land for agricultural use, principally for feeding livestock, in OU2 and OU3. Off-siteagricultural lands near OU3 on which food crops are grown may be irrigated with surface water thatreceives contaminants from OU3. Surface water was not sampled at Area 15 where dairy cowsreportedly drank water from a drainage ditch near the area. Surface water, soil, and sediment willbe sampled during the 1992 RIs for OU2 and OU3. ATSDR will reevaluate this pathway when theNavy releases the data from those reports; ATSDR will then assess the need for sampling livestockor their products.

Air Pathway

VOCs and solvents were detected in soil gas during the HWES in Ault Field Central Core Area,Area 52 and Seaplane Base areas and during the RI sampling at OU1 Area 6. Past, present, andfuture potential pathways exist for base personnel and construction workers who would dig or drillin areas where the soil gases were detected or concentrations of VOCs, fuels, and solvents exist inthe soil or groundwater. Buildings, particularly with basements, near areas where soil gas wasdetected could accumulate gas that has migrated into the buildings. People who use the beach areanear Area 52 could be exposed to VOCs in soil or groundwater via inhalation. Availableinformation is insufficient to confirm completed pathways for the potentially exposed population. The Navy did not take ambient air samples at locations where people could be potentially exposedto VOCs.

In addition, localized areas of soil gas contamination were detected off site to the west of Area 6. There are no buildings on the areas; however, the soil gas could pose a future hazard for workers who may excavate near the areas or if any buildings or homes are built on those areas. Available information is insufficient to confirm completed pathways for the potentially exposed population. The Navy did not take ambient air samples at the locations of the closest potential exposed populations. Available information shows that the ambient air pathway would represent only incidental, short-term exposures.

ATSDR will reevaluate this pathway when additional air monitoring information is available.


PUBLIC HEALTH IMPLICATIONS

In this section, ATSDR discusses health effects that may result from exposures to contaminantsreleased into the environment; however, a release does not always result in exposure. For adversehealth effects to occur, two principle criteria must be met: the exposure pathway must be completedand the exposure concentration sufficient to cause adverse health effects.

People can only be exposed to a site contaminant if they come in contact with it. Exposure canoccur by breathing, eating, or drinking the contaminant, or by dermal (skin) contact withcontaminated water, soil, or air.

To understand health effects that may be caused by a specific chemical, it is helpful to review factorsrelated to how the human body processes the chemical after exposure. Those factors include theexposure concentration (how much), the duration of exposure (how long), the route of exposure(breathing, eating, drinking, or skin contact), and the multiplicity of exposure (combination ofcontaminants). Once exposure occurs, individual characteristics such as age, sex, nutritional status,health status, lifestyle, and genetics influence how the chemical is absorbed, distributed, metabolized(processed), and excreted. Together, those factors determine the health effects that may occur fromexposure.

A. Toxicological Evaluation

Environmental data available to ATSDR at this time do not show exposures have occurred. However, several potential exposure pathways to contaminants have been identified: surface andsubsurface soil, sediment, surface water, groundwater, public and private wells, food, and ambientair. The contaminants to which people may be exposed include: VOCs, heavy metals, pesticides,polychlorinated biphenyls, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (carcinogenic andnoncarcinogenic).

Surface Soil

Installation employees, contractors, remedial workers, and recreational users could have beenexposed to surface soil contaminants in the past, present, and future. In addition, on- and off-sitepeople harvesting crops grown on or near IRP areas could potentially be exposed to contaminants insoil that have not been characterized. Those exposures to surface soil by ingestion and dermalcontact would be short term and incidental. At the reported contaminant concentrations, thosepotential exposures are of such short duration that they do not pose a risk for the development ofadverse health effects. In addition, chronic exposures (greater than 365 days) of that nature, on site,are unlikely to occur to children and adult personnel. However, characterization of the IRP areas isimportant, because ATSDR uses the data to assess past, current, and future exposure scenarios.

Subsurface Soil

Potential exposure of remediation workers and base personnel to VOCs, heavy metals, PAHs, andPCBs in subsurface soil by dermal contact and ingestion is possible during excavation andconstruction. Proper precautions and use of personal protective equipment during work operationswhen digging or drilling in the IRP areas on Ault Field and Seaplane Base will minimize exposure. The beach area near Area 52 provides a potential exposure pathway for recreational users. At thereported contaminant concentrations, those exposures to subsurface soil by ingestion and dermalcontact would be short term and incidental, and they do not pose a risk of developing adverse healtheffects. Chronic exposures (greater than 365 days) of this nature, on site, are unlikely to occur tochildren and adult personnel.

Sediment

There is a past, present, and future potential exposure of children and base personnel to potentiallycontaminated sediment by dermal contact. Contaminants above comparison values are arsenic, lead,and PAHs. At the reported contaminant concentrations, those exposures by ingestion and dermalcontact would be short term and incidental, and they do not pose a risk of developing adverse healtheffects. Other potential exposures of children and base personnel to sediment are unlikely to occursince the sites are located around the base runways, which are restricted areas. As the water flowstoward Dugualla Bay, concentrations of contaminants may decrease, further diminishing the level ofexposure. People who hike, hunt, fish, or boat in the bay may potentially be exposed to unknownconcentrations.

Surface Water

There is a past, present, and future potential for exposure of base personnel and recreational users topotentially contaminated surface water by ingestion and dermal contact. People could potentially beexposed to VOCs, heavy metals, and petroleum hydrocarbons. Those exposures would be brief andincidental; however, ATSDR does not have sampling data for all surface waters on NAS. ATSDRwill reevaluate the surface water pathway when the Navy releases the data from surface waterinvestigations.

Groundwater

The possibility for people to be exposed to contaminated groundwater exists if Base Well #4 is usedas an alternative drinking water source. If that were to occur, further testing of water at the point ofuse would be necessary to insure people who used that water were not exposed to groundwatercontaminants by ingestion, inhalation, and dermal contact.

Public and Private Wells

The potential for exposure of off-base residents to contaminated public and private well water existsif migration of VOCs and heavy metal contamination from OU1 Area 6 occurs. Available dataindicate those wells are not contaminated by Area 6. In addition, the base is connecting homes ofresidents with private wells in the affected areas to municipal water supplies. Therefore, thepossibility of a future exposure to contaminated water is not likely.

Food Chain

Fish/Shellfish

In the January 1989 Preliminary Health Assessment for NAS Whidbey Island-Seaplane Base (Appendix C), ATSDR stated that arsenic (up to 2.7 mg/kg) detected in shellfish was at levels expected to cause adverse health effects. However, current information at ATSDR shows that the organic forms of arsenic found in shellfish are non-toxic (44). Arsenobetaine and arsenocholine are the principal organic arsenic compounds contained in the flesh of fish, shellfish, and crustaceans. Therefore, arsenic (organic forms) at 2.7 mg/kg is not at a level of health concern.

A past, present, and future potential for exposure exists for on- and off-base residents and personnel who ingest shellfish and seaweed contaminated with heavy metals and PCBs. Limited sampling information available to ATSDR shows that shellfish are contaminated with heavy metals that bioaccumulate in those organisms. Based on that information, and the fact that the area may be used for recreational and subsistence fishing by the Asian population (about 8.5% of Oak Harbor population), the potential for exposure may increase. In addition, fish and shellfish consumption rates are significantly higher in Asian-Americans than for other groups, a fact that is confirmed by regional sport fishing consumption studies (45).

Available information also shows that those potential exposures may be incidental or long termdepending on the population's fishing practices and fish consumption rates. However, exposuresmay be eliminated in Crescent Harbor because shellfishing is restricted from the seaplane rampsnear the Navy Exchange to an unknown distance past Areas 48/49 due to coliform counts thatexceed water quality criteria.

ATSDR calculated potential exposure rates for people whose fish and shellfish ingestion rates aregreater and more frequent than those who eat fish and shellfish occasionally. The exposure scenarioincludes a consumption rate of 60-381 grams/day of fish and shellfish more than once a day andmore than once a week. Those people would not be exposed to levels of contamination that wouldbe expected to cause adverse health effects.

Additional exposure to heavy metals may occur among Asians who consume contaminated seaweedbecause seaweed also bioaccumulates heavy metals. The consumption patterns and ingestion ratesof seaweed in the Asian population are unknown. However, simultaneous consumption ofcontaminated shellfish and seaweed may result in exposure to higher levels of metals, causingconcern. Seaweed sampling is required for adequate analysis of this exposure. ATSDR will reviewthat information when it is available.

Crops

The use of stream water that flows from OU3 to irrigate crops is of concern because plants mayaccumulate arsenic and other heavy metals via root uptake from soil solutions, and certain speciesmay accumulate substantial levels. Besides species differences, the amount of arsenic taken updepends on soil arsenic concentrations, soil characteristics, and the fact that sediment serves as areservoir for much of the arsenic entering surface waters.

A past, present, and future potential exposure exists for off-site residents who ingest barley, hops, orother agricultural crops that may be irrigated with contaminated water. The potential for uptake ofcontaminants such as heavy metals by these crops is possible and may be a health concern. Additional soil, sediment, surface water, and possibly agricultural crop sampling information isneeded to address this pathway. ATSDR will evaluate that information as it becomes available todetermine potential health implications.

Air

In the soil gas pathway, the detection of VOCs shows that volatilization of chemicals is occurringfrom soil contamination on and off site. The lack of appropriate sampling data, however, does notallow for a dose exposure estimation. Proper precautions taken by remedial workers and basepersonnel while digging or drilling soil in the area of OU1 will minimize exposure.

B. Health Outcome Data Evaluation

ATSDR conducts a review of health outcome data when completed exposure pathways have been identified, when the toxicologic evaluation shows the likelihood of health outcomes, and when the community near the site has health concerns. ATSDR has not identified completed exposure pathways at Ault Field or Seaplane Base that could result in cancer or other adverse health effects. However, because a local resident expressed concern about the rates of cancer in Washington and the county, ATSDR reviewed available health outcome data at the county and state level. A review of the state's vital statistics for 1989, which was the latest available to ATSDR, shows a birth rate for Island County as 17.1 per 1000 people as compared to 16.2 per 1000 for the state of Washington. The mortality rate for the county was 7.6 per 1000 and 7.7 per 1000 for the state (46). The review reflects trends (such as higher birth rates and lower death rates) associated with populations living near military installations. The age group with the largest population was that of people between the ages of 25-34, which is typical in areas with military installations. In addition, the review noted a drop in the numbers of people aged 45 and older. The demographic data support such trends.

ATSDR was provided with cancer incidence data for Island County, Washington by the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center (47). The data included age-adjusted rates by sex for all cancer sites diagnosed in the county and the 13 counties in the Washington cancer registry, 1980-1990. ATSDR's analysis of the cancer incidence data for Island County consisted of the calculation of the Standardized Incidence Ratios by cancer site and sex for the county (Tables 24 and 25). A Standardized Incidence Ratio (SIR) is the ratio of the observed new cancer cases to the number of cases expected in the population of interest. This analysis established that cancer incidence in Island County occurred essentially as expected. If, in the future, ATSDR needs site-specific health outcome data analysis, ATSDR will request and review it.

The Birth Defects Registry for Washington has collected information for three years, 1986-1989. ATSDR did not evaluate that database because there were no completed exposures and no specific community health concerns.

Table 24.

Invasive Cancer Incidence for Females, Island County, Washington (47) 1980-1990
Cancer Site County Rate State
Rate
County
Population
Observe
County
Expected
County
SIR * 95% C.I.**
Lung44.9641.924725143113.961.251.06-1.48
Liver 0.6 1.1524725 2 3.130.640.08-2.31
Kidney 3.93 4.8724725 14 13.251.060.58-1.77
Lymphoma
Nodular
9.3 8.0224725 30 21.811.380.93-1.96
Lymphoma
Extranodular
2.08 2.40247255 7 6.531.070.43-2.21
ChronicLymphocyticLeukemia 2.07 2.1824725 6 5.931.010.37-2.20
Acute Myelocytic
Leukemia
1.15 1.8724725 4 5.090.790.21-2.01
Chronic Myelocytic
Leukemia
0.34 0.8824725 1 2.390.420.01-2.33
Other Myelocytic
Leukemia
0.66 0.2124725 2 0.573.500.42-12.68
Other Acute
Leukemia
0.56 0.5124725 2 1.391.440.17-5.20
Other Leukemia 0.81 0.4124725 3 1.122.690.55-7.83

* Standardized Incidence Ratio - the ratio of the observed new cancer cases to the number of cases expected
** Confidence interval - a range of values stating that 95% of these intervals will include the SIR between an upper and a lower limit


Table 25.

Invasive Cancer Incidence for Males, Island County, Washington (47) 1980-1990
Cancer Site County Rate State
Rate
County
Population
Observe
County
Expected
County
SIR * 95% C.I.**
Lung 83.77 83.01 27103 248 247.48 1.00 0.88-1.13
Liver 1.53 2.97 27103 4 8.85 0.45 0.12-1.16
Kidney 7.07 10.30 27103 18 30.70 0.59 0.35-0.93
Testes 4.29 5.10 27103 16 15.20 1.05 0.60-1.71
Skin 0.79 1.01 27103 2 3.01 0.66 0.08-2.40
Lymphoma Nodular 10.62 11.84 27103 30 35.30 0.85 0.57-1.21
Lymphoma Extranodular 4.73 3.82 27103 13 11.39 1.14 0.61-1.95
Acute Lymphocytic Leukemia 2.67 1.85 27103 8 5.52 1.45 0.63-2.86
Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia 4.877 4.46 27103 15 13.30 1.13 0.63-1.86
Acute Myelocytic Leukemia 3.49 2.66 27103 10 7.93 1.26 0.60-2.32
Chronic Myelocytic Leukemia 1.36 1.71 27103 4 5.10 0.78 0.21-2.01
Other Acute Leukemia 0.35 0.97 27103 1 2.89 0.35 0.01-1.93
Other Leukemia 0.37 1.14 27103 1 3.40 0.29 0.01-1.64

C. Community Health Concerns Evaluation

ATSDR addressed each community concern as follows:

During the ATSDR site visit, an Island County Health Department representative voiced aconcern about the possible health effects of consuming seaweed by the Asian population whocollect it from Crescent Harbor.

Available sediment data from Crescent Harbor show that the contaminant levels are not at levels thatwould be expected to cause adverse health effects. Additional sediment sampling data are expectedfrom the RI for Operable Unit 4. Certain seaweed species have an affinity (biophilic) for someheavy metals; however, the Navy did not sample and analyze seaweed. ATSDR does not know ifthe levels absorbed by seaweed are significant. ATSDR will reevaluate this pathway if there aresignificant changes in sediment contaminant levels, and if and when edible seaweed species fromCrescent Harbor are analyzed.

A resident voiced a concern about what was thought to be a higher than normal incidence ofcancer among people who lived along a road near the Area 6 landfill and Oak Harborlandfill.

Current data show that off-site residents near Operable Unit 1 are not exposed to levels ofcontamination that are likely to cause cancer. ATSDR has examined health outcome data from thestate of Washington, but the data do not show an incidence of cancer for Oak Harbor or NASWhidbey Island that is higher than expected.

A resident voiced a concern about excessive aircraft noise because airplanes fly within 50feet of her house. She stated that the smell of kerosene is overwhelming and had complaintsabout chronic sinus problems that seem to clear up when she leaves the area for any lengthof time. She believes that her sinus problems are related to kerosene spills from the jets andis worried about contamination of trees, fruit, vegetables, and wonders about the effects oninfants and children.

Another resident complained that there is a lack of noise abatement measures at WhidbeyIsland.

The resident complaining of kerosene odors was mailed information concerning the health effects ofjet fuels.

According to Island County Health Department, no noise regulations exist and the Navy would beexempt even if there were regulations. The Navy/DOD maintains Air Installation Compatible UseZones (AICUZ), and based on the intensity of noise, land areas are zoned for compatible land use. Zone 1 is compatible for all land use, Zone 2 is recommended only for commercial use, and Zone 3is not recommended for residential or commercial use. If a home owner wants to reduce the noiselevel in their home, the Island County Building Department, Office of Planning and CommunityDevelopment can recommend sound-proofing techniques that they can install, such as; add doubleglazed windows, caulk and seal all windows, retro fit solid-core doors, make air tight door seals,make interior walls thicker with added wall board on every other wall, and add more insulation tothe roof, floor or crawl space. Air or ventilation ducts should be insulated with fiberglass, andcreating 90 degree bends in the tubing will further reduce noise transmission.


CONCLUSIONS

ATSDR has classified the multiple potential sources of contamination at NAS Whidbey Island asindeterminate public health hazards. That category is used to designate sites with incompleteinformation. The limited available data do not indicate that people are being or have been exposedto levels of contamination that would be expected to cause adverse health effects. Data are notavailable for all environmental media to which people may be exposed. Island County health outcome data do not indicate that the site has had an adverse impact on human health.

  1. Health outcome data were evaluated in the public health assessment, and no further action isneeded at this time. If additional information becomes available indicating that humans are exposed to levels of toxic substances that could cause harm, ATSDR will reevaluate the site for needed public health actions.

  2. Groundwater is contaminated with VOCs and metals at concentrations exceedingcomparison values. At OU1 Area 6, a contamination plume is migrating in the direction ofoff-base private and public drinking water sources and may have moved off site to the westof Area 6 as shown by off-site monitoring well data. In the fall of 1992, the Navy connectedhomes and other facilities that were potential receptors of groundwater contamination toNAS or the city of Oak Harbor's water supply system and eliminated the possibility of those people drinking contaminated groundwater.

    • On-site drinking water sources are not currently contaminated. Off-site drinkingwater sources near Area 6 are not currently contaminated.

    • The OU1 Feasibility Study to remediate contamination from the former hazardouswaste storage area at Area 6 will remove VOC contamination from the shallowaquifer. Some of the metals in groundwater may be removed by a pre-treatmentprocess.

    • Contaminants from NAS could migrate between shallow, intermediate, and deepaquifers if conduits were created by faulty well construction or if old wells havedeteriorated. The aquifers were once drinking water sources for communities andprivate residences on Whidbey Island. Some of the private wells have been capped. Those residents have been connected to city or navy water systems except the localVeterans of Foreign War building whose owners did not connect to either sourcebecause they wanted to maintain their well for irrigation.

    • People could be exposed to VOCs and metals by ingestion and may be at increasedrisk of developing adverse health effects, if off-site private or public well waterbecomes contaminated at Area 6 in the future.

  3. Several classes of chemical compounds such as metals, pesticides, and PCBs used ordisposed at NAS can bioaccumulate or bioconcentrate in the food chain.

    • Limited sampling information available to ATSDR shows that some shellfish werecontaminated with heavy metals. Reportedly, no shellfish harvesting is known tooccur around Crescent Harbor. There is a restricted area posted with signs that read"Contaminated shellfish" about 1,200 feet east of Area 49 along the harbor, 100 feeteast and west of a tidal creek (surface and seawater outflow). The area is restrictedbased on coliform counts and not levels of metals. However, the Navy maintainsthat they will keep the signs in place because of ATSDR's concerns with possiblecontamination of the aquatic food chain.

    • Fish, shellfish and seaweed consumption patterns and ingestion rates in Asians orothers are needed to help determine if potential exposure to contaminants increasestheir risk of developing adverse health effects.

    • Sediments are contaminated in several drainage canals including the runway ditches. If runway ditches are used to irrigate crops, plants may accumulate arsenic and otherheavy metals via root uptake from soil. Certain species, such as barley and hops,may accumulate substantial levels of those metals. The amount of arsenic uptakealso depends on soil concentrations, soil characteristics, and the fact that sedimentserves as a reservoir for much of the arsenic entering surface waters.

  4. Potential on-site exposures to metals, VOCs, pesticides, PAHs, and PCBs in soil, sediment,and surface water by ingestion and dermal contact would be short term and incidental. Chronic on-site exposures (greater than 365 days) are unlikely to occur. The proposedremedial soil actions at OU1 - OU4 may eliminate those pathways.

    • Human exposures to contaminants could occur at OU1 - OU5, Ault Field CentralCore Areas, and Seaplane Base Areas.

    • Additional sampling and analyses performed for the Final RIs at those OUs andstudy areas provided most of the necessary information on the concentrations ofcontaminants in the media of concern.

    • Long-term exposure to metals, PCBs, pesticides, and PAHs that were detected in soilon Seaplane Base could expose people by ingestion and dermal contact tocontaminants levels expected to cause adverse health effects. Area 41 on SeaplaneBase is next to a parcel of land that the Navy has transferred; future use of that landcould be a source of human exposure to hazardous chemicals by ingestion anddermal contact.

    • Compositing soil and sediment samples could lead to erroneous sitecharacterizations, as may have already occurred at OU2.

  5. High levels of soil gas were detected at several on- and off-site areas. Plans for monitoringor removal have not been addressed. The detection of VOCs in air and soil gas shows thatvolatilization of chemicals is occurring from soil contamination on and off site. The lack ofappropriate sampling data does not allow for a dose exposure estimation. Proper precautionstaken by remedial workers and base personnel while digging or drilling soil in areas where soil gas was detected will minimize exposure.

  6. Base Well #4 does not appear to be contaminated by substances from the IRP areas. Contamination of Base Well #4 with VOCs and heavy metals would result in potentialexposure of base personnel and base residents at Naval Air Station Whidbey Island, AultField. Although the primary source of water at NAS is imported from the mainland viapipeline, the possibility for exposure to contaminated groundwater exists if Base Well #4 is used as an alternative source.

RECOMMENDATIONS

  1. Implement institutional controls to prevent future well construction, in areas withgroundwater contamination, particularly in areas near the boundary of NAS.

  2. If new wells are identified in contaminated groundwater areas (other than the residentialwells near Area 6 that were connected to the city of Oak Harbor water supply system), plugand seal the abandoned wells according to EPA and state of Washington regulations toprevent potential human exposure and further contamination of the shallow aquifer.

  3. If systematic studies show wide-spread sediment and surface water contamination in fishingor seaweed gathering areas, provide sampling information on shellfish, fish, and seaweedspecies that are recreationally harvested and consumed by people. Pending the results ofadditional sampling, more stringent restrictions on harvesting of marine biota may bewarranted.

  4. Consider revoking agricultural and grazing leases for base areas that are IR program sites ormay receive runoff from IR program sites, if monitoring results indicate contaminated water,soil, or sediment is migrating to those leased areas. Continue monitoring the off-site stream and lagoon near OU3 because the lagoon water is used for crop irrigation.

  5. Restrict access to areas under investigation until such time as sample data confirms access restriction is not necessary.

  6. Evaluate land use changes at the areas under investigation, because long-term exposure tocontaminants at those areas may pose an increased risk of developing adverse health effects.

  7. Conduct future movement of wastes in a way that minimizes the potential for release ofhazardous substances. Procedures in the Navy's Health and Safety Plan for the RI generallyinclude avoiding waste movement on windy days, ensuring that remediation workers userespiratory protection, monitoring air during remediation, and ensuring workers wearprotective clothing that can minimize exposure to hazardous substances.

  8. ATSDR recommends the following future waste characterization efforts: (1) reevaluate andresample the study areas, emphasizing location and quantity of samples taken, especiallysurface soil (OU3 - off site, OU4, OU5), sediment (Ault Field ditches, OU3 - off site, OU4),surface water (Ault Field ditches, OU3 - off site), air (OU1 - off site, OU2, OU5),groundwater (OU3 - off site), and groundwater in the intermediate and deep aquifers (OU1);(2) sample all potentially contaminated media including marine food chain biota in CrescentHarbor and Oak Harbor and on- and off-site crops irrigated with potentially contaminatedwater.

  9. Perform periodic ambient air monitoring at OU1 Area 6 to verify that potential atmosphericemissions of soil gases at off-site residences and businesses near Area 6 remain below levelsof health concern. According to the Navy, most of those efforts have been carried out during the RI/FS activities.

  10. Collect and analyze water samples for contaminants detected on site before using the basewells as drinking water sources. If wells currently connected to the drinking water systemare intended to be a backup source for fire fighting, then measures should be taken to insure residents do not drink the water.

The data and information developed in the NAS public health assessment were evaluated by theATSDR Health Activities Recommendation Panel (HARP) for follow-up health actions. HARP hasdetermined that based on the evaluation of available data and on current site conditions at the NAS,public health actions are not indicated at this time. Further sampling and analysis is needed toevaluate if people are exposed to contaminants from NAS. ATSDR will evaluate more data as itbecomes available to determine if public health actions are indicated for the community near the site.


PUBLIC HEALTH ACTIONS

The public health action plan (PHAP) for NAS describes actions planned by ATSDR and/or theNavy following completion of the public health assessment. The purpose of the PHAP is to ensurethat this public health assessment not only identifies public health hazards, but provides a plan ofaction designed to mitigate and prevent adverse human health effects resulting from exposure tohazardous substances in the environment. Included, is a commitment by ATSDR to follow up onthis plan. The public health actions to be implemented are as follows:

Actions Completed

  1. The Navy conducted additional RI/FS activities to further characterize groundwatercontamination on and off site. Only groundwater at Area 6 appears to be a potentialpathway for exposing people to contaminants, at this time. Washington State regulationsprohibit drilling drinking water wells within one mile of a landfill. The Navy will considerother institutional controls in the Feasibility Study (FS) for OU1-Area 6.

  2. The Navy canceled an agricultural lease near Area 15, PD-680 Spill Area when theydiscovered that dairy cows drank water that flowed from Area 15; although the milk fromthose cows was not being used. The Navy also canceled agricultural leases for Area 6several years ago.

  3. The Institute of Wildlife and Environmental Toxicology, Clemson University, SouthCarolina completed a toxicology demonstration project focusing on three areas using astarling bioassay, raptor tracking, and small mammals as bioindicators. The study includedAreas 14 and 29 in OU2 and Area 16 in OU3. The objective was to provide acomprehensive ecological risk assessment by studying the reproductive success andbiochemical function of the bioassay organisms and comparing results to reference stations. Organic chemical analyses of soil and invertebrates are planned. The 3-year study iscomplete, and the final report is being written. The preliminary information indicates thatvoles accumulated contaminants, but bioaccumulation up the food chain was not occurring.

  4. ATSDR held public availability sessions on August 26, 1993 during the Public Commentperiod. Additional community health concerns were gathered and incorporated into thisdocument.

Actions Planned

  1. The Navy will conduct interim remedial measures at OU1, Area 6, to minimize any furthermigration of contamination in groundwater. The major components of the Navy's interimremedial action are extraction of the groundwater in the shallow aquifer under Area 6 tominimize the spread of the contamination plume, treatment of the extracted water by metalprecipitation, and air stripping of VOCs. The Navy plan also includes fencing, groundwatermonitoring, capping the landfill, institutional controls to prevent potable well drilling nearthe site, surface water control, and landfill gas management. As part of the site remediationplan, the Navy connected homes and other sites served by off-site wells to the city of OakHarbor's water supply system. The Navy has included appropriate language in each wellowner's connection agreement that the wells will be closed in accordance with WashingtonState regulations.

  2. At OU5, Area 52, the Navy proposes a limited remedial action to remove the free-phaseproduct and after completion will verify the removal by analysis of groundwater samples. The Navy proposes to remove the dry wells at Areas 11, 13, 35, and 36 fuel farms, toeliminate a potential conduit for contamination to reach subsurface soils and groundwater. The Navy also proposes a limited remedial action to remove floating product (fuel) on the groundwater at Area 13.

  3. The Navy will remove the ordnance burning bins at Area 53. A remedial action will beperformed at Area 14 to remove soil contaminated with pesticides.

  4. The Navy will review their contractor's Health and Safety Plans to verify that it containsprocedures to minimize the potential for release of hazardous substances. The Navy willalso insure adequate monitoring occurs during remediation, and that workers wear personalprotective equipment that can minimize their exposure to hazardous substances.

  5. Proposed land use changes at NAS Whidbey Island are addressed through the environmentalplanning process, which includes NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act) compliance. Any land use change includes consideration of hazardous waste contamination.

  6. ATSDR will follow up this PHAP, outlining the actions completed and those in progress. This report will be placed in repositories and copies will be provided to persons who request it.

ATSDR will reevaluate and expand the PHAP when needed. New environmental, toxicological,health outcome data, or the results of implementing the above proposed actions may determine theneed for additional actions at the NAS Whidbey Island NPL sites.


PREPARERS OF REPORT

Stephen S. Aoyama, P.E.
Environmental Engineer
Federal Programs Branch
Division of Health Assessment and Consultation

Leticia Arredondo, M.D., M.P.H.
Medical Officer
Federal Programs Branch
Division of Health Assessment and Consultation

Susan McAfee Moore
Environmental Health Scientist
Federal Programs Branch
Division of Health Assessment and Consultation


Reviewers of Report

Diane Jackson
Chief, Navy Unit
Federal Programs Branch
Division of Health Assessment and Consultation

John E. Abraham, Ph.D., M.P.H.
Chief, Defense Facilities Assessment Section
Federal Programs Branch
Division of Health Assessment and Consultation


ATSDR Regional Representative

Gregory D. Thomas
Public Health Advisor
EPA Region X


REFERENCES

  1. Sterns, Conrad, and Schmidt; Landau Associates. Navy Assessment and Control ofInstallation Pollutants, Initial Assessment Study of Naval Air Station, Whidbey Island,Washington. UIC: N00620. September 1984.

  2. SCS Engineers. Current Situation Report, Naval Air Station Whidbey Island, Washington. January 1988.

  3. Science Applications International Corporation. Final Action Plan for the RemedialInvestigation/Feasibility Study at NAS Whidbey Island, Oak Harbor, Washington. October 19, 1990.

  4. Declaration of the Record of Decision, Decision Summary, Responsiveness Summary, andAdministrative Record Index for Interim Remedial Action, Naval Air Station WhidbeyIsland, Operable Unit 1, Area 6, Oak Harbor, Washington. April 1992.

  5. ATSDR. 1993. Conference call (June 1) with NAS Whidbey Island environmentalpersonnel on the Navy's comments on Initial Release Public Health Assessment for NASWhidbey Island.

  6. URS Consultants, Science Applications International Corp., B&V Waste Science andTechnology Corp., Shannon & Wilson, Inc. Draft Final Remedial Investigation Report forOperable Unit 1, Naval Air Station Whidbey Island, Oak Harbor, Washington, CTO-0005. June 29, 1992.

  7. U.S. Navy. NAS Whidbey Island, Oak Harbor, Washington. Minutes of the TechnicalReview Committee. June 25, 1992.

  8. URS Consultants, Inc. Final Work Plan for a Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study of Operable Unit 2 at NAS Whidbey Island, Oak Harbor, Washington. January 10, 1992.

  9. URS Consultants, Inc. Draft Work Plan for a Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study of Operable Unit 2 at NAS Whidbey Island, Oak Harbor, Washington. June 28, 1991.

  10. Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC). Martin Marietta Energy Systems,Inc. Hazwrap Support Contractor Office. Technical Memorandum, Site 6 Landfill InitialInvestigation. October 17, 1990.

  11. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. ATSDR Record of Activity fortelephone communication with Island County Health Department personnel, July 16, 1992.

  12. U.S. Navy. Letter from Head, Environmental, Engineering Field Activity Northwest to U.S. EPA Region 10 and Washington Department of Ecology. June 26, 1992.

  13. URS Consultants, Inc. Hazardous Waste Evaluation Study for the Comprehensive Long-Term Environmental Action Navy (CLEAN) Northwest Area. NAS Whidbey Island, OakHarbor, Washington, Contract Task Order No.: 0030. June 26, 1992.

  14. URS Consultants, Inc, Science Applications International Corporation. Initial Screening ofContaminants and Conceptual Site Models Technical Memorandum, Operable Unit 4 (Areas39, 41, 44, 48, and 49), Naval Air Station Whidbey Island, Seaplane Base, Oak Harbor,Washington, Contract Task Order 0042. April 1, 1992.

  15. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. ATSDR Record of Activity fortelephone communication with Washington Department of Ecology personnel, June 23,1992.

  16. URS Consultants. Hazardous Waste Evaluation Study, Naval Air Station Whidbey Island,Oak Harbor, Washington. Final Project Work Plan, CTO-0030. May 1991.

  17. Whidbey Press, Inc. 1992 Whidbey Almanac.

  18. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Preliminary Health Assessment forNAS Whidbey Island-Seaplane Base, Oak Harbor, Island County, Washington. January 19, 1989.

  19. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. ATSDR Record of Activity fortelephone communication with Island County Health Department personnel, August 25,1992.

  20. URS Consultants, Inc., Science Applications International Corporation. Draft CommunityRelations Plan for Superfund Activities at Naval Air Station Whidbey Island, Oak Harbor,Washington. February 1, 1991.

  21. Washington State Department of Fisheries. 1992. Letter (February 4) and map about thenumber of shellfish harvesters counted by flight survey in Oak Harbor and Crescent Harbor.

  22. Environmental Protection Agency. 1981. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Federal Register 46:48314.

  23. Environmental Protection Agency. 1982. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. FederalRegister 47:14779-14780.

  24. URS Consultants, Science Applications International Corp., B&V Waste Science andTechnology Corp., Shannon & Wilson, Inc. Draft Final Feasibility Study Report forOperable Unit 1, Naval Air Station Whidbey Island, Oak Harbor, Washington, CTO-0005. June 29, 1992.

  25. Science Applications International Corp., URS Consultants. Final Field Sampling Plan for aRemedial Investigation/Feasibility Study, Operable Unit 4, NAS Whidbey Island SeaplaneBase, Oak Harbor, Washington. CTO 0015. July 1, 1991.

  26. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. ATSDR Record of Activity fortelephone communication with Washington Department of Health personnel,August 9, 1991.

  27. URS Consultants. CTO-005, Operable Unit A (Areas 5 & 6), Naval Air Station WhidbeyIsland, Oak Harbor, Washington. Interim Action Project Plans, Work Plan for InterimAction Sampling and Testing. June 18, 1990.

  28. URS Consultants, Inc. Draft Remedial Investigation for Operable Unit 1, Naval Air StationWhidbey Island, Oak Harbor, Washington. February 26, 1992.

  29. URS Consultants, Inc. Technical Memorandum for the Comprehensive Long-TermEnvironmental Action Navy (CLEAN Program) Northwest Area. Operable Unit 1, NASWhidbey Island, Oak Harbor, Washington, Contract Task Order No. 005. March 25, 1991.

  30. SAIC. NAS Whidbey Island, Operable Unit 2, CTO-0054, RI/FS. Presentation of Phase IData and Phase II Scope. June 11, 1992.

  31. U.S. Navy. CTO #0054, OU 2 - Ault Field, NAS Whidbey Island, Meeting Minutes. June11, 1992.

  32. URS Consultants, Inc. Management Plan for the Comprehensive Long-Term EnvironmentalAction Navy (CLEAN Program) Northwest Area, Operable Unit 3 (Areas 16 and 31 at AultField), Naval Air Station Whidbey Island, Oak Harbor, Washington, Contract Task OrderNo.: 0053. May 6, 1992.

  33. Shannon & Wilson, Inc., URS Consultants, Inc. Final Report, Soil Vapor Survey for theComprehensive Long-Term Environmental Action Navy (CLEAN Program) NorthwestArea. Naval Air Station Whidbey Island, Oak Harbor, Washington, Contract Task OrderNo.: 030. April 22, 1991.

  34. Hart Crowser. Final Site Characterization Report, Jet Engine Test Cell, NAS WhidbeyIsland, Washington. J-2851-01. May 1991.

  35. URS Consultants, Inc. Hazardous Waste Evaluation Study for the Comprehensive Long-Term Environmental Action Navy (CLEAN) Northwest Area. NAS Whidbey Island, OakHarbor, Washington, Contract Task Order No.: 0030. September 30, 1992.

  36. Hulsman, Steve. An Evaluation of Drinking Water Quality in the Vicinity of the WhidbeyNAS and Oak Harbor Landfills - Summary Report. Northwest Drinking Water Operations,Office of Environmental Health Programs, Washington Department of Social and HealthServices. June 1989.

  37. Hulsman, Steve. Project Quality Assurance and Work Plan - NAS Landfill and Oak HarborLandfill, Whidbey Island - Phase III. Hulsman, Steve. Northwest Drinking WaterOperations, Office of Environmental Health Programs, Washington Department of Socialand Health Services. May 28, 1991.

  38. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. ATSDR Record of Activity fortelephone communication with Washington Department of Health personnel, December 16,1991.

  39. Hulsman, Steve. An Evaluation of Drinking Water Quality in the Vicinity of the WhidbeyNaval Air Station Landfill, Summary Report. Northwest Drinking Water Operations,Division of Drinking Water, Office of Environmental Health Programs, WashingtonDepartment of Health. March 1993.

  40. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. ATSDR Record of Activity fortelephone communication with Navy Installation Restoration Program personnel, August 5,1992.

  41. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. ATSDR Record of Activity fortelephone communication with Naval Air Station Whidbey Island personnel, July 27, 1992.

  42. U.S. Navy. Letter and review comments on the Initial Release Public Health Assessment forNaval Air Station Whidbey Island. May 20, 1993.

  43. AECOS, Inc. A Preliminary Toxicity Study of Water, Sediment, and Fish Tissues fromInner Pago Pago Harbor in American Samoa. July 1991.

  44. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Draft Toxicological Profile for Arsenic. October 1991.

  45. U.S. EPA, 1990 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Exposure Factors Handbook. Washington, DC: Office of Health and Environmental Assessment. Exposure AssessmentGroup. EPA/600/8-89/043.

  46. Washington State. Department of Health. Annual Summary of Vital Statistics Washington State 1989. October 1990.

  47. Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center. Cancer incidence data for Island County.

b. Same person may exist at more than one location.
c. Volatile organic compounds - 1,1,1-trichloroethane, trichloroethylene, 1,1-dichloroethylene, carbon tetrachloride, methylene chloride and/or xylenes.
d. Semivolatile organic compounds - bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
e. Polychlorinated biphenyls
f. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
g. Occupancy report from Base Housing Office, May 91. Assumes personnel who live and work on Ault Field and Seaplane Base would have highest exposure.
h. DSHS tested the wells which serve about 1,200 people within 0.5 to 1.5 miles of Area 6 landfill former hazardous waste storage area.
i. Technical Memorandum, Site 6 Landfill Initial Investigation, October 1990.
j. Information from Washington Dept. of Fish and Wildlife, Pt. Whitney Lab flight surveys for Oak and Crescent Harbors, 1990 - 9,217 people and 1991 - 4,776 people.




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. #