PUBLIC HEALTH ASSESSMENT
NAVAL AIR STATION WHIDBEY ISLAND (AULT FIELD AND SEAPLANE BASE)
OAK HARBOR, ISLAND COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Figure 1. NAS Whidbey Island, Ault Field and Seaplane Base (13)
Figure 2. NAS Whidbey Island, Operable Units
Figure 3. Operable Unit 1, Areas 5 and 6 (6)
Figure 4. Operable Unit 2, Areas 2, 3, 4, 14, and 29 (8)
Figure 5. Operable Unit 3, Areas 16 and 31, and Location of Base Wells. (32)
Figure 6. Operable Unit 4, Seaplane Base; Areas 39, 41, 44, 48, and 49 (25)
Figure 7. Proposed Operable Unit 5, Areas 1 and 52 (16)
Figure 8. Hazardous Waste Evaluation Study Areas (16)
Figure 9. Ault Field Central Core Areas (2)
Figure 10. Lake Hancock Target Range (1)
Figure 11. Ault Field Underground Storage Tank Program (1)
Figure 12. Seaplane Base Underground Storage Tank Program (1)
Figure 13. NAS Whidbey Island Ecosystems
Figure 14. Area 52 Apparent Product Thickness Contours (34)
Figure 15. Area 6 Estimated Limits of Groundwater Contamination (29)
Figure 16. Census Tracts and Block Groups Around NAS Whidbey Island
| Ault Field | Seaplane Base | CT 9701 BGs 1 & 3 | CT 9704 BG 1 | CT 9704 BG 2 | Island County | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| | ||||||
| Total persons | 3876 | 4861 | 2434 | 734 | 1262 | 60,195 |
| Total area, square miles | 6.98 | 4.56 | 7.77 | 1.62 | 2.02 | 208.59 |
| Persons per square mile | 555 | 1066 | 313 | 453 | 625 | 289 |
| | ||||||
| % Male | 83.5 | 49.9 | 53.7 | 52.6 | 52.6 | 52.1 |
| % Female | 16.5 | 50.1 | 46.3 | 47.4 | 47.4 | 47.9 |
| | ||||||
| % White | 78.6 | 82.2 | 90.4 | 89.6 | 89.5 | 91.4 |
| % Black | 10.4 | 6.9 | 1.8 | 0.6 | 2.2 | 2.4 |
| % American Indian, Eskimo, or Aleut | 0.8 | 0.8 | 1.3 | 0.6 | 1.0 | 0.8 |
| % Asian or Pacific Islander | 5.5 | 8.2 | 4.8 | 5.7 | 5.6 | 4.2 |
| % Other races | 4.7 | 1.9 | 1.7 | 3.5 | 1.7 | 1.1 |
| | ||||||
| % Hispanic origin | 7.7 | 7.5 | 3.4 | 6.4 | 4.0 | 3.3 |
| | ||||||
| % Under age 10 | 8.2 | 35.0 | 17.6 | 21.7 | 17.7 | 15.9 |
| % Age 65 and older | 0.3 | 0.9 | 7.0 | 7.5 | 5.1 | 13.8 |
| | ||||||
Source: 1990 Census of Population and Housing, Summary Tape File 1 (Washington). Prepared by Bureau of the Census, Washington, DC, 1991.
CT - Census Tract
BG - Block Group
| Ault Field | Seaplane Base | CT 9701 BGs 1 & 3 | CT 9704 BG 1 | CT 9704 BG 2 | Island County | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| | ||||||
| Households* | 334 | 1332 | 858 | 277 | 479 | 21,787 |
| Persons per household | 3.00 | 3.65 | 2.81 | 2.65 | 2.63 | 2.61 |
| | ||||||
| % Households owner-occupied | 6.0 | 4.0 | 59.4 | 52.3 | 68.9 | 65.6 |
| % Households renter-occupied | 94.0 | 96.0 | 40.6 | 47.7 | 31.1 | 34.4 |
| | ||||||
| % Households mobile homes | 0.3 | 0.0 | 14.2 | 42.2 | 49.1 | 10.2 |
| | ||||||
| % Persons in group quarters or institutions | 74.1 | 0.0 | 0.9 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 4.9 |
| | ||||||
| Median value, owner-occupied households, $ | 73,500 | ~100,000 | ~85,000 | 81,300 | 92,600 | 103,400 |
| Median mo. rent, renter-occupied households, $ | 368 | ~420 | ~375 | 359 | 323 | 397 |
| | ||||||
* A household is an occupied housing unit, but does not include group quarters such as military barracks, prisons, and college dormitories.
Source: 1990 Census of Population and Housing, Summary Tape File 1 (Washington). Prepared by Bureau of the Census, Washington, DC, 1991.
CT - Census Tract
BG - Block Group
Table 28. Chronology of Operable Unit 1 Field Investigations Conducted Prior to Current Remedial Investigation. (6)
Table 28 was not available in electronic format for conversion to HTML at the time of preparation of this document. To obtain a hard copy of the document, please contact:
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
Division of Health Assessment and Consultation
Attn: Chief, Program Evaluation, Records, and Information Services Branch E-56
1600 Clifton Road NE, Atlanta, Georgia 30333
Table 29. Chronology of Operable Unit 1 Field Investigation Related to Current Remedial Investigation. (6)
Table 29 was not available in electronic format for conversion to HTML at the time of preparation of this document. To obtain a hard copy of the document, please contact:
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
Division of Health Assessment and Consultation
Attn: Chief, Program Evaluation, Records, and Information Services Branch E-56
1600 Clifton Road NE, Atlanta, Georgia 30333
| Area and Dates of operation, if known | Description of contamination or activity |
|---|---|
| Operable Unit 1 (OU1) | |
| 5 - Highway 20/Hoffman Road Landfill. 1958-1959; 1 acre, 400'x150' | The area is in the southeast corner of Ault Field; Main Ault Field landfill for 1 year. Active gravel pit. Reported abandoned due to residents complaints of well contamination. 15,000 gallons of oily wastes may be buried in drums in trenches 10-12' deep. |
| 6 - Landfill. 1979-present. 295 acres | The landfill is in the southeast corner of Ault Field, and consists of a series of cut and fill trenches. The source of contamination is near the gravel loop road in the west central part of Area 6. This area has been used since 1969 for disposal and storage of petroleum hydrocarbons (oils, sludges, greases), acid and caustic solutions, solvents and cleaning agents, paint related materials, asbestos, animal remains and rubble. Specific areas of storage and disposal are the acid pit (1971-1980s), oily sludge pit (1969 to mid-1970s), hazardous materials drum storage area (early 1980s to 1986) and solvent/caustic storage tank (unknown dates of operation). Disposal of large amounts of solvents into the acid and oily sludge pits, which were unlined, could account for most of contaminants detected in the groundwater and soil. Leaks and spills from the other disposal areas may also have contributed. |
| Operable Unit 2 (OU2) | |
| 2 - Western Highland Landfill. 1959-1969; 13 acres | Area is located immediately southwest of current fire fighting school in southwestern portion of Ault Field and received primary solid waste disposal from Base activities. There is a wetland just east of the area, which drains eastward toward Dugualla Bay. Area 2 and Area 3 are potential areas to be used for agriculture. Buildings 2654, 2650, 2640, and 2647 abut the landfill to the north. The same chemicals as Area 1 were disposed here. Oil pits were used to dispose of 2000-10,000 gallons of mixed liquid waste per month. |
| 3 - 1969-1970 Landfill. 1.5 Acres | Adjacent Area 2 and southeast of the current fire school. Primary landfill after Area 2 was closed and while the Landfill (Area 6) was being developed. Runoff from Area 3 flows into the wetland near Area 2. 15,000 gallons of drummed oily wastes. |
| 4 - Walker Barn Storage Area. Before circa 1972? | In western part of Ault Field near Area 3. Storage of out-of-service transformers. Walker Barn burned down in April 1982, but no transformers were reportedly stored in it at that time. A craft and auto hobby shop are about 1250 feet to the east and Building 2655 is about 450 feet southwest of Area 4. Area of known PCB contamination is fenced. |
| 14 - Pesticide Rinsate Disposal Area. 1973-1983 | In the south central part of Ault Field. Rinsate and spillage from pesticide and herbicide equipment, vehicle washing operations and parking lot runoff flowed into a dry well. The dry well is about 25 feet south of an asphalt parking lot for Building 2555. Pesticides and herbicides included 2,4-D; 2,4,5-T; bromacil, pramitol, amitrole-T, atrizine, pyrethrin, diazinon, malathion, and chlordane; dry well 12 feet long by 6 feet across and reportedly 12 to 15 feet deep; dry well filled to near surface with gravel and reportedly lined with plastic sheeting; area below the dry well defoliated. |
| 29 - Clover Valley Road Fire School. 1951-1966. 40x40' pit. 1 Acre. | West of intersection of Clover Valley Road and Golf Course Road in southwestern Ault Field; 2000 feet east of Strait of Juan de Fuca. In a grassy region bordered by trees to the west, the 16th tee of the Navy golf course to the south, Golf course Road to the east and a paved road to Rocky Point recreational area to the north. There are no buildings or work areas near Area 29. Land surface slopes gently from west to east. Agricultural areas are in use within 100 feet to the northeast. Drainage ditches convey surface runoff to the northeast and eventually to Dugualla Bay. Same burn materials as area 27. Estimated 50,000 to 70,000 gallons of unburned fuels may have been discharged to the ground. |
| Operable Unit 3 (OU3) | |
| 16 - Runway Ditches. Currently active. | Transport surface water runoff from the runway area of Ault Field into a small tidal lagoon in East Clover Valley that is periodically pumped into Dugualla Bay. Runway ditches also provide irrigation water for adjacent agricultural fields. Contaminants include fuels, oils, solvents, caustic rinsate, Stoddard solvent, carbon-cleaning compound, paint spray wastes. 1965-1974 - 30,000-50,000 gallons of JP-5 discharged, before 1965 - 5000-10,000 gallons AVGAS, 1965-1981 - 600 to 5000 gallons other liquid wastes. During 1992, ethylene glycol discovered in the arresting gear equipment area. The Navy proposed adding this area for investigation as part of OU3. |
| 31 - Runway Fire School. 1967-1980 | 400 yards northeast of intersection of Ault Field Runways 31 and 24. Contaminants are similar to Area 27. 100,000 pounds of Aqueous Film Forming Foam was used to extinguish fires. Waste liquids flowed in to two gravity oil/water separators before being discharged to a marshy area near the runways. Area 16 is adjacent and south of Area 31. |
| Operable Unit 4 (OU4) - Seaplane Base | |
| 39 - Auto Repair and Paint Shop. 1940's-present. Seaplane Base. | On the Oak Harbor side of Seaplane Base peninsula. Radiator tank boil-out tank, anti-freeze, caustics, soldering compounds, acid, heavy metals, paints, oils were drained on the ground weekly north of the building until 1982. The Navy Public Works Department currently collects and removes waste solutions. |
| 41 - Buildings 25 and 26 Disposal Area. Seaplane Base. | On the Oak Harbor side of Seaplane Base peninsula. Building 26 was a paint shop. Building 25 was pesticide control shop. In the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s, paint, thinners, solvents, and pesticides reportedly disposed at rock seawall behind the shops. Seawall sloped with elevation gain of 10 feet. Area extends for 550 feet along Oak Harbor. Bldg 25 was demolished in the 1970s except for a concrete pad. Bldg 26 is currently flammable materials storage; fenced area on both ends on Bldg 26 used for drum storage till recently. The near shore area also received waste sand and paint residue from sand blasting operations on Seaplane Base. |
| 44 - Seaplane Base Nose Hangar. 1940s-1950- | Used for service and maintenance of seaplanes. On the Oak Harbor side of Seaplane Base peninsula. Building now demolished and area is on northern end of large paved area east of Marina drive; now serves as recreational vehicle storage. Possible steam cleaning or wash rack activity near drain at northerly perimeter of foundation. Drain is now storm drain that discharges to Oak Harbor. A sump is within the foundation perimeter and may be connected to the storm or sewer system. Numerous reported small spills of 1 to 100 gallons of AVGAS, oil, and solvents. Waste motor oils, fuels, and solvents possibly poured into the sump. |
| 48 - Salvage Yard, Seaplane Base. 1940-1970 | In the west central part of Seaplane Base near the intersection of Torpedo Road and Beach Road. Scrap metal and flammable material storage. Fire in 1965 or 1966 resulted in discharge of solvents, thinners, paints, and strippers on the ground and to wetlands to the north. Currently, the area is grass covered with no visible evidence of fire, spills, or storage yard activities. A wetland, 100 feet to the north, occupies about 200 acres. A road prevents direct surface runoff to the wetland. A waste treatment lagoon is within the wetland. Crescent Harbor is 400 feet south. |
| 49 - Seaplane Base Landfill. 3-4 acres near Area 48. 1945-1955 | In the west central part of Seaplane Base near the intersection of Torpedo Road and Beach Road. Used to burn Seaplane Base wastes. Burning dump. Received solid and industrial wastes and could have received solvents, paints, thinners, oils, and fuels. Waste was reportedly dumped from the road landward. |
| Operable Unit 5 (OU5) (Proposed) | |
| 1 - Beach landfill, originally a small marsh. 1945-1958. 6 acres | In western Ault Field next to the Strait of Juan De Fuca and near Area 52. The area received garbage and putrescibles, construction/demolition debris, burn area including solid and some liquid/chemical wastes. Chemicals buried included paint, strippers, solvents and thinners (Stoddard solvent, methyl ethyl ketone, carbon tetrachloride, trichloroethene, trichloroethane); caustics; fuels, oils, greases; asbestos; lead, zinc, magnesium and other metals potential. No previous studies. |
| 52 - Jet Engine Test Cell. 1957-present. Currently active. | Located in the northwestern portion of Ault Field, bounded by the Strait of Juan de Fuca 150 feet to the west and Saratoga Street to the east. Jet fuel in soil and groundwater was detected in 1987 during a geotechnical study for the installation of a second test cell. Total 2400 gallons fuel spilled in 1986 and 1987, recovered an unknown amount. Jet fuel storage tank piping leaked near south west corner of test cell and repaired; however, duration of leak unknown. Solvents and waste oil also discarded into 6-inch diameter open-bottom steel-cased dry well and depression near a storm drain; unknown amounts. Until the 1980's, wastes were placed in bowsers and used at fire schools and for road oiling. Since 1980s, wastes are collected by the Public Works Department for disposal off-base. |
| Hazardous Waste Evaluation Study (HWES) | |
| Areas, determined by the Navy, requiring limited remedial action for cleanup followed by confirmatory analysis | |
| 11 - Fuel Farm 4. early 1950s- | In south Ault Field near the intersection of Clover Valley Road and Old Ault Field Road, 300 yards west and upslope from Area 10. Three underground storage tank clusters. Tank bottom sludge disposed of in dry wells near each tank till 1980. Dry wells are gravel filled concrete pipes buried vertically in the ground. Spills of AVGAS, JP-5, MOGAS, and diesel fuel. September 17, 1973, about 13,500 gallons JP-5 spilled from tank 362; most of fuel soaked into the ground. Top six feet of soil reportedly contaminated with fuel and oil. Fuel seepage visible in drainage ditch at bottom of hill near 1st Street. Oil/water separator installed in ditch to protect area to north and east. The area is a secured site, but not fenced. |
| 13 - Fuel Farm 3. early 1940s- | In the Ault Field Central Core area. Two underground storage tank clusters. Dry wells next to each tank used for tank bottom sludge disposal till 1980. In 1955, 75,000-80,000 gallons AVGAS spilled from tank 235; estimated 20,000-30,000 recovered. Base theater parking lot and basement flooded. The spill soaked into the ground and flowed down hill to the north, flooding the theater parking lot and basement. During groundwater sampling, 2.5 feet of free product was detected floating on the water in one monitoring well. The Navy proposes a limited remedial action to remove the free product. Building 243, personnel service center, is 100-200 feet northwest of the area. AVGAS, JP-5, lube oil storage. |
| 35 - Fuel Farm 2, Seaplane Base. 1940s- | Near Forbes Point on the Crescent Harbor side. Seven 250,000 gallon tanks on 12 acres. AVGAS storage 1940s-1970s. JP-5 storage currently. Dry wells used for tank bottom disposal until 1980. Prior to 1982, leaks and spills reportedly seeped down the hill to the beach. Spill control and oil/water separator installed in 1982. After a 1988 spill, soil was excavated and area cleaned up. IAS reported oily waste dripping onto beach. |
| 36 - Fuel Farm 1, Seaplane Base. 1940s- | Between Coral Sea Avenue and Tulage Avenue. Four 250,000 gallon, one 100,000 gallon, and four 25,000 gallon tanks. AVGAS storage, 1940s- mid-1970s. JP-5, diesel, AVGAS, No. 1 and No. 2 fuel storage, mid-1970s-. Dry well used for tank bottom disposal. Several spills over operational period. In 1982 spill, oil saturated soil was removed. |
| Areas, determined by the Navy, requiring additional investigation for area characterization and for potential contamination | |
| 7 - Old waste Storage Tank Spills. | In south Ault Field near the main gate. Five aboveground tanks. Located in old gravel pit on the southern side of Ault Field near the current hazardous waste storage area. Solutions of methylene chloride, cresols, oleic acid, caustics, phenols, EDTA spilled. Possible contributor to Area 16. |
| 8 - Sewage Sludge Disposal Area. 1954-1974 | In south Ault Field near the intersection of Clover Valley Road and Old Ault Field Road. Sludge from digesters at sewage treatment plant spread on grounds; 20,000-80,000 gallons. No studies. |
| 9 - Asphalt Plant Disposal Area. 1950-1976 | In south Ault Field near the intersection of Clover Valley Road and Old Ault Field Road. About 140 foot by 300 foot area used for disposal of about two cubic yards per day of road oil wastes. Road oil, asphalt, waste oil disposal. No studies. |
| 15 - PD-680 Spill Area (1 sq yd). 1974-1982 | In the Ault Field Central Core area; Bldg 423 used in the past for torpedo repair and servicing. Otto (torpedo) fuel wastes and solvents were discharged to a vertical holding tank near the front gate (south) of the facility; overflow from the tank drained to a nearby drainage ditch then to a flowing stream. Site is currently an active weapons facility and is built within a wetland. Paved parking area; ground mostly grass covered. Area 15 is an area five feet north of Building 423, used for cleaning weapons; est. 150 gallons PD-680 (also called Stoddard solvent; 85% nonane, 15% trimethylbenzene) and bore cleaner disposed. A paint and solvent storage locker is within the area. Visible evidence on ground. Solvent is now put into the waste tank and periodically removed by the NAS Public Works Department. The flows to the east after leaving the site and was not sampled. |
| 17 - Old Ault Field Coal Pile. 1945-1950s | In the Ault Field Central Core area. Encompasses about 1000 sq. ft. No studies. |
| 18 - Ault Field Nose Hangars. 1950s to mid-1960s | In the Ault Field Central Core area. Servicing and maintaining P2 aircraft. About 5000-10,000 gallon spills of AVGAS, JP-5, solvents, and oil. |
| 19 - Fuel Truck Depot. 1950-1960 | In the Ault Field Central Core area. Service and storage yard for fuel trucks near old Ault Field sewage treatment plant between current Buildings 2641 and 2547. Reported last few gallons of fuel in trucks drained onto ground. Estimated at 500-1000 gallons per year. |
| 20 - Ault Field Sewage Clarifier. 1940s-1955 | In the Ault Field Central Core area. Located on northeast side of Bldg 2547. The old treatment plan was demolished and buried in 1971. Concern about solvents in sludge and migration from Area 18 and 19. |
| 34 - Machine Gun Range Berms. Before 1955. | In the southwest corner of Ault Field, southwest of golf course. Gun cleaning oils and solvents. No observable indication of contamination. A lead recovery excavation in 1973 was not completed, and little lead was recovered. |
| 36 - Fuel Farm 1, Seaplane Base. 1940s- | Between Coral Sea Avenue and Tulage Avenue. Four 250,000 gallon, one 100,000 gallon, and four 25,000 gallon tanks. AVGAS storage, 1940s- mid-1970s. JP-5, diesel, AVGAS, No. 1 and No. 2 fuel storage, mid-1970s-. Dry well used for tank bottom disposal. Several spills over operational period. In 1982 spill, oil saturated soil was removed. |
| 45 - TCE Tank. Seaplane Base. 1942-? | Adjacent to Building 14 which was used as laundry and dry cleaning plant from 1942-1982. Adjacent Area 43. Reported 500 gallon UST abandoned but not pumped out. |
| Areas, determined by the Navy, to be clean and require no further action. | |
| 10 - Building 2536 PCP Dip Tank. 1970-1980 | In south Ault Field near the intersection of Clover Valley Road and Old Ault Field Road. Wood treating area. Pentachlorophenol, dioxins potential. No studies. |
| 22 - Hangar 5. early 1950s-1981 | In the Ault Field Central Core area. Near southwest corner of Hangar 5. Storing drums of various chemicals; paint thinners, stripers, solvents, lacquers, alodine, MEK, PD-680, TURCO, kerosene, toluene, paints. Paved 30'x40'; leakage reported. |
| 23 - Northwest Apron Area. 1940s-1980s | In the Ault Field Central Core area. A 1200 foot by 20 foot aircraft servicing and maintenance area. AVGAS, JP-5, MEK, PD-680, TURCO, toluene, oil, hydraulic fluid spilled or disposed on ground or in storm drains. |
| 24 - Building 283 PCP Dip Tank. 1960s-1970s | In the Ault Field Central Core area. An open 600 square foot shed south of Bldg 371, 400 feet north of Base Well #4. A 4 foot x 4 foot x 12 foot tank in the shed was used to treat lumber with pentachlorophenol (PCP). Spillage of one gallon per week is estimated. |
| 25 - Building 120 Transformer Service Area. 1960's, 1970-1974 | In the Ault Field Central Core area. Possible PCBs spills. Was located near southwest corner of Bldg 2551. About 600 gallons transformer fluid disposed of on ground. Bldg 2551 construction may have removed or buried the area. |
| 27 - 1966 Fire School. 6 months in 1966. | One acre site north of 5th Street across from Building 962. Shallow pit where waste flammables, contaminated fuel and oil, are ignited. Water used for extinguishing fire and unburned flammable liquids was washed to the surrounding areas. Estimated at 1000-2000 of fuel oil, AVGAS, JP-5, Stoddard solvent, carbon removing compound, TCE, TCA, MEK, paint thinners, strippers, PCBs. |
| 28 - Chapel Fire School. 1940s-1951 | North of Eighth Street across from base chapel. Estimated 55,000 gallons of waste fuels, oils, solvents, thinners, flammable liquids, PCBs released. |
| 32 - Building 889 Transformer Service Area. 1970 (or earlier)-1975 | North end of Ault Field. Transformer fluid disposed in drainage ditch. PCBs, dioxins potential. |
| 40 - Seaplane Base Coal Pile. 1942-1947 | Between Buildings 49 and 26 on the Oak Harbor side of the peninsula. Heavy metals, phenolics. 2 acres. |
| 53 - Polnell Point Ordnance Burn Area. Seaplane Base. Early 1950's- | Three metal bins were used for burning ordnance. Bins and remnants of ordnance remain. Two to three miles east of Seaplane Base peninsula. East boundary of Crescent Harbor. Area is overgrown by grasses, brush, and trees, and slopes upward from the spit area to the south end of the peninsula. Since 1983, the area is restricted to emergency demolition only because of complaints from the nearby housing development. No groundwater encountered. Subsurface soils analyzed for ordnance compounds by gas chromatograph/electron capture detector. No contamination found. HWES recommends no action except to remove burn bins. |
| Investigation requested by Washington State Department of Ecology | |
| 51 - Lake Hancock Target Range. 1943-1973. 350 acres | Aerial target range, 20 miles south of Seaplane Base. Currently used to monitor aerial gunnery training in Admiralty Bay. No known incidents of spillage or waste disposal. 1972 and 1973-three sweeps conducted to clear inert ordnance. No live ordnance was used on the range. Spotting charges may not have detonated, presenting explosive or contaminant hazard. Fenced, patrolled, often submerged tidal marsh. |
| Areas Included in Navy Underground Storage Tank Program4 | |
| 21 - Boiler plant Oil Spill. Bldg. 384; 1954- | Four large fuel oil tanks buried on the northeast side of the building for use by boiler plant. 1976-substantial leakage or overflow reported from one or more tanks. Monitoring well had 13 inches of oil on water in 1976 and in storm sewers; 1976-storm sewer plugged and oil reported pumped from monitoring well. No formal oil recovery operation done. Only traces of oil noted in IAS. |
| 26 - Abandoned Ault Field Oil Tanks | 8 tanks at Bldg 946, 127, 119, 118, 113, 108, 102, and 100. Oil from the tanks could leak out, tanks could pose a physical hazard if they collapsed. |
| 37 -Abandoned Seaplane Base Oil Tanks | Near Bldg 48 which was demolished in 1976. Two 20,000 gallon underground fuel tanks. Tanks replaced in 1981 or 1982 due to corrosion. Old tanks may have leaked unknown quantity of fuel oil into ground. Physical hazard if tanks are not filled or removed. |
| 42 - Supply Gas Tank Leak. Seaplane Base | In front of Bldg 357, west of Coral Sea Ave. 2000 gallon tank replaced in 1981 or 1982. Gasoline leak could migrate to Oak Harbor or Crescent Harbor. |
| 43 - Seaplane Base Gas Station | Near Bldg 2507. Unleaded gasoline tank leaked and was replaced about 1982. Quantity of unleaded gasoline that leaked out is unknown. Possible migration to Oak Harbor. |
Preliminary Health Assessment for Whidbey Island Naval Air Station-Ault Field
Preliminary Health Assessment for N.A.S. Whidbey Island-Seaplane Base
Appendix C was not available in electronic format for conversion to HTML at the time of preparation of this document. To obtain a hard copy of the document, please contact:
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
Division of Health Assessment and Consultation
Attn: Chief, Program Evaluation, Records, and Information Services Branch E-56
1600 Clifton Road NE, Atlanta, Georgia 30333
APPENDIX D: COMMENTS ON THE NAS WHIDBEY ISLAND PUBLIC HEALTH ASSESSMENT
The following comments (bold print) were received by ATSDR in response to the public commentperiod for the NAS Whidbey Island Public Health Assessment. This list of comments does notinclude editorial comments concerning word spellings, sentence syntax, etc. It does not includecomments on the accuracy of stated facts. If the accuracy of a statement was questioned, thestatement was verified or corrected. The portions of the comments below that are in parenthesiswere paraphrased by ATSDR for brevity or clarity. If the same comments were received from morethan one source, only one comment and response is listed. ATSDR's response follows eachcomment.
General Comments
Comment 1: Under a section titled planned actions on page 77 of this document it is stated "ATSDRwill announce and hold a public availability session during the Public Comment release to discuss thematerial presented in the public health assessment." It has been noted that the planned publicavailability session is scheduled for August 25, 1993 several days after the close of the publiccomment period. We request that the public comment period be extended a minimum of one week sothat the two events coincide as intended.
Response to Comment 1: ATSDR extended the public comment period until September 4, 1993.
Comment 2: (Incorporate the data from the latest documents in the Final Public Health Assessment. Include information from the final Remedial Investigation reports for Operable Unit (OU) one,OU-2 and OU-4 and draft final RI for OU-3. If the latest data is not to be incorporated, include adiscussion clearly stating that preliminary data may be rejected, unconfirmed or (chemicals may be)determined to be naturally occurring or background. Preliminary data may also indicatecontamination from an off site source. That discussion should be included in the "Summary" sectionof this document so the reader is aware of the potential data shortfalls up front).
Response to Comment 2: ATSDR revises Department of Defense public health assessments if new information about the environment, community health concerns, and health outcome data becomes available and isfound to modify previous conclusions and recommendations. Data collection in the Superfund process cantake years and be voluminous.
After review of the new data for NAS Whidbey, several changes have been made to the Pathways Section(text and tables), Public Health Implications Section, Conclusions, Recommendations, and the Public HealthAction Plan.
Comment 3: Many of the possible contaminants are compared to reference values which may haveno practicable application to the area in question. A brief discussion of background concentration isprovided in the Public Comment Release PHA. However, it is not related back to the issue ofcontamination extent. The latest RI documentation has established background values for the localarea. The use of these values as references would more accurately depict the extent and degree ofchemical contamination.
The statement on page 24, top paragraph (states), "Heavy metals were detected in air, surfacesediment, ..." leads the reader to think these media are all contaminated. Several of these were notabove background, particularly in the intermediate and deep aquifers.
Response to Comment 3: The text has been edited as follows:
"Background levels in local soil and water may be greatly influenced by high levels of chemicals from nativemineral deposits or other natural sources. Background levels could be anthropogenic (e.g., gravel for a roador parking lot) substances in the environment due to human-made, non-site sources. If contaminants detectedon site are below background concentrations, but exceed applicable comparison values, ATSDR will list themin the data tables to follow and evaluate whether exposure to them is of public health concern."
Comment 4: It is realized that ATSDR does not conduct risk assessments but rather healthassessments. However, considering the PHA is being released after final RI/FS reports, the differencebetween the ATSDR health assessment and the EPA risk assessment methodology and applicationneeds to be discussed in some detail.
Response to Comment 4: ATSDR added a section entitled "ATSDR AND THE PUBLIC HEALTHASSESSMENT PROCESS AT DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE FACILITIES" to the beginning of thisdocument. It provides details on the purpose and usefulness of a public health assessment.
There are some similarities and many differences between risk assessments and public health assessments. The major differences are that public health assessments evaluate health outcome data and community healthconcerns while risk assessments do not. Additionally, public health assessments evaluate the health impactfrom past exposures and identify follow-up health activities.
Comment 5: The policy of listing a contaminant as present in all media because it was detected in onemedia leads the reviewer to believe the contamination is more widespread and severe than it really is.In the initial release PHA this policy was clearly stated. In the public comment release there is nomention of this policy, however, it does not appear as though the policy has changed, it is just nolonger stated as such.
Response to Comment 5: The text was changed to add "When a contaminant exceeds comparison values inone medium, it will be discussed or listed in the tables for all media."
Comment 6: (We are concerned that) proposed remediation plans appear to have the potential toadd to air and groundwater pollution problems. At a time when the Federal Air Quality Act isrequiring dry cleaners and printers to prevent the release of small quantities of VOCs into theatmosphere, the unfiltered air stripping will be establishing an entirely new source of air pollutionand releasing them in relatively large, but "permissible" amounts. Without further justification wefind this unacceptable.
The proposed (remediation) plan recommends that the leachate be treated via air-stripping toremove VOCs. (Such) treatment provides the best available technology for removal of the thus-faridentified contaminants, which include organic/inorganic constituents together with a variety ofmetals. Elevated concentrations of arsenic in the region of Operable Unit 1 pose a risk of becomingmore concentrated via such air stripping.
Response to Comment 6: VOCs and arsenic levels are elevated in groundwater, surface water, subsurfacesoils and sediment in Area 6. The Navy's remediation proposal stipulates that control measures be in place ifemission levels reach 14-pounds-per-day of hydrocarbons (the Northwest Air Pollution Authority limit for airstrippers). Decisions concerning remediation at NAS are made by the Navy, EPA, and WashingtonDepartment of Ecology. EPA and the state must give the final approval. The public can comment on theproposal.
A metals pre-treatment process (oxidation via potassium permanganate) is designed to remove iron andmanganese from the untreated groundwater prior to its introduction into the air stripper. That pre-treatmentshould also have arsenic removal capability. In addition, the Navy proposes that the air stripper operating temperature will be between 100 - 130ºC. Arsenic volatilizes at 300ºC.
Comment 7: (There is) a lack of noise abatement measures at Whidbey Island.
Response to Comment 7: According to Island County Health Department, no noise regulations exist and theNavy would be exempt even if there were regulations. The Navy/DOD maintains Air InstallationCompatible Use Zones (AICUZ), and based on the intensity of noise, land areas are zoned for compatible landuse. Zone 1 is compatible for all land use, Zone 2 is recommended only for commercial use, and Zone 3 isnot recommended for residential or commercial use. If a home owner wants to reduce the noise level in theirhome, the Island County Building Department, Office of Planning and Community Development canrecommend sound-proofing techniques that they can install, such as; add double glazed windows, caulk andseal all windows, retro fit solid-core doors, make air tight door seals, make interior walls thicker with addedwall board on every other wall, and add more insulation to the roof, floor or crawl space. Air or ventilationducts should be insulated with fiberglass, and creating 90 degree bends in the tubing will further reduce noisetransmission.
Comment 8: Throughout the PHA the Area 6 landfill is referred to as the current landfill. TheLandfill is in fact closed and no longer in use.
Response to Comment 8: The text has been edited to reflect that change. NOTE: The final RI/FS report(6/93) for OU1 refers to the landfill in Area 6 as the active or current landfill.
Specific Comments
Comment 9: On page 2, "Summary", paragraph 1 and 3, the text discusses potential exposure forAsians through fish, shellfish and seaweed, and states that the Island County Health Departmentexpressed a concern about the potential health effects for Asians who gather and eat seaweed fromCrescent Harbor. No estimate of the number of Asians using Crescent Harbor, their frequency andvolumes of seaweed gathering, or their specific fishing, shell fishing, and seaweed gathering locationsare given. Crescent Harbor has 5 miles of shoreline, and areas under investigation are located alongonly a fraction of that distance. (We) are not aware of seaweed gathering occurring near areas underinvestigation.
Response to Comment 9: ATSDR evaluated additional shellfish sample analyses for areas under investigation and determined that people (e.g., Asians, who may consume up to 381 grams/day) are not exposed to levels of contamination that would be expected to cause adverse health effects. The Summary and other portions of the document have been edited to reflect that change.
In addition, the text has been edited to include information on the posted signs that read "Contaminatedshellfish".
Comment 10: (Is) the area restricted from shell fishing marked in such a way as to be reasonablyascertainable to persons entering the area from the shore or from the water?
Response to Comment 10: The area restricted to fishing is marked by signs that read "Contaminatedshellfish" for persons entering the area from the shore.
Comment 11: On page 2, "Summary", paragraph 4, the ATSDR recommendations in thisparagraph are underway. Monitoring of wells is taking place according to the RI/FS schedule.Washington State regulations prohibit construction of wells within 1 mile of landfills. Shellfishharvesting is restricted near the areas under investigation in Crescent Harbor.
Response to Comment 11: The text has been edited to reflect the information on monitoring wells.
No shellfish harvesting is known to occur around Crescent Harbor and signs are posted that read"Contaminated shellfish". According to the Navy, the posted signs were based on earlier reports of elevatedcoliform counts, but will be kept in place because of ATSDR's concerns about NPL site contaminantspossibly contaminating aquatic food chain entities.
Comment 12: On page 5, "OU1", paragraph 3, the discussion regarding the VOC plumes and waterconnections are out of date.
Response to Comment 12: The VOC plume appears to extend to the western border of the landfill and southto the border of Area 6 and Oak Harbor landfill.
The final RI/FS (6/93) characterized the extent of contamination at OU1 and evaluated remedial actions forcleaning up the contamination. Proposed actions described in the RI/FS are designed to remediategroundwater, to reduce exposure to site-related contaminants, and to ensure that VOCs in the shallow aquiferdo not migrate.
Comment 13: On page 6, Table 3, the table ends with documents produced in June 1992. Severalactions have occurred and documents have been produced since that time, including the results of theWashington State Department of Health December 1992 sampling of private and monitoring wells,and revised draft documents for RI/FS.
Response to Comment 13: Table 3 was edited to add the following information.
02/90 NAS official listing on NPL list.
06/93 Final Remedial Investigation Report and Feasibility Study published.
Comment 14: On page 7 (Background), section A (Site Description and History), subsection entitled"Operable-Unit 2 (OU2)", Table 4 (Operable Unit 4, Areas Under Investigation)
Beginning with Table 4, the table columns titled "Potential Hazardous Substances Present" includeseveral acronyms and abbreviations in place of the chemical names that they are representing (e.g.,"AVGAS", "JP-5", "PCBs", "MEK"). Although chemists and environmental engineers may befamiliar enough with these terms to associate them with the correct hazardous compounds and/orchemicals, it is not likely that the general public will have such familiarity. Since this is a publicdocument, footnotes or a table providing the chemical names associated with each of the acronymsand/or abbreviations should be included to clearly identify the compounds and chemicalsrepresented.
Response to Comment 14: ATSDR included footnotes to provide the full chemical names for the compoundand chemical acronyms/abbreviations used throughout this PHA.
Comment 15: On page 9, "OU5", paragraph 2, the text does not discuss the results of samplingindicating the presence of vinyl chloride. The project was undergoing investigation under PetroleumUnderground Tank regulations, not CERCLA, until the vinyl chloride was discovered. The area wastransferred to RI/FS due to the vinyl chloride.
Response to Comment 15: The text has been edited to add this information.
Comment 16: On page 11, "HWES", paragraph 2, the text states that the Navy has determined thatseveral areas need additional characterization. (Removal actions have also been recommended.)
Response to Comment 16: The text states: "Some areas are listed more than once, because the Navy willperform removal actions and additional investigations at those areas."
Comment 17: On page 15, Land Use, the text states the Opportunity Council for Oak Harbor willreceive an excess Ed parcel of land. The mentioned transaction is not a finalized deal and the finaldisposition of the land is in fact unknown at this point in time.
Response to Comment 17: The text has been edited to reflect that information.
Comment 18: On page 19 (Background), section D (Health Outcome Data), paragraph 1, thestatement is made that data from military hospitals are not included in the Washington Birth DefectsRegistry due to "sporadic reporting." It is likely that ATSDR intended to connote, by this statement,that the transitory nature of military personnel (and their families) limits the collection of long-termmedical histories at any particular military facility, and that short-term medical histories havenormally been excluded from state disease registries because such information would only confoundlong-term disease statistics.
Response to Comment 18: The text has been edited to add that information.
Comment 19: On page 25, Table 10 (Contaminant Concentrations at Operable Unit 1), thecomparison value for carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (cPAHs) is the cancer riskevaluation guide (CREG) value for benzo(a)pyrene (BAP). The text does not address theoverestimation of risk presented by the use of the BAP CREG value for all cPAHs. TheEnvironmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region IV and Region X offices have recently adopted atoxicity equivalent factor (TEF) methodology for assessing risk from cPAHs. The TEF method isbased on each cPAH's potency relative to that of BAP. TEFs for commonly occurring cPAHs rangefrom .01 (for chrysene) to 1.0 (for dibenso(a,h)anthracene), with a preponderance of the cPAHcompounds being assigned a value of 0.1 that of BAP. If the TEF method were used, even themaximum cPAH concentrations found would fall below benchmark risk levels.
Response to Comment 19: The concentrations are not evidence of exposure of concern, but are used only toselect contaminants to be further evaluated. The site-specific exposure scenario (duration, frequency, etc.,) isevaluated in the Public Health Implications section of the public health assessment. When possible, acute andsubchronic health guidelines are used in the Public Health Implications section to discuss exposure scenariosof shorter duration. However, these values are seldom available.
The CREG values used in the public health assessment do not significantly affect the outcome/conclusions. The CREG is used to select contaminants for further evaluation in the public health assessment. Whenappropriate, the uncertainty of the comparison values is presented in the Public Health Implications section of the public health assessment.
Comment 20: On page 26, "OU1 Soil Gas", the soil gas survey is a screening device used in the fieldwith limited QA/QC. The results of the survey were used to site wells and boring locations, not asenvironmental samples upon which to assess risk or make health decisions. Moreover, the soil gassurvey measures soil gas concentration, which is not comparable to concentrations in either confinedspaces, buildings or atmosphere.
The text does not discuss the potential for any contaminant release from soil gas to confined spacesor buildings. No structures are located at or near Area 5 or Area 6, therefore the only potential is ifsuch structures are built. Since OU1 consist of landfills, it is unlikely that it will be developed forfuture residential use. Furthermore, an industrial scenario may also be unlikely. The Code of FederalRegulations, Volume 40, Part 258 ("EPA Criteria for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills (MSWLFs)"),Subpart F ("Closure and Post Closure Care"), paragraph 258.60 (i) (1) and (2) state that "Followingclosure of all MSWLF units, the owner or operator must record a notation on the deed to the landfillfacility property...The notation of the deed must in perpetuity notify any potential purchasers of theproperty that: (i) the land has been used as a landfill facility; and (ii) its use is restricted underparagraph 258.61 (c) (3)." Paragraph 258.61 (c) (3) states that "Post closure use of the property shallnot disturb the integrity of the final cover, liner(s), or any other components of the contaminantsystem, or the functioning monitoring system."
Response to Comment 20: The text was edited to reflect the fact that no buildings are in the vicinity and thereare provisions in the law for preventing the release of contaminants when building on landfills.
Comment 21: (On page 31, "OU1 Groundwater - Monitoring Wells, Area 6 - Deep Aquifer" andpage 55, Section C (Quality Assurance and Quality Control), paragraph 2) Much of the informationin the "Area 6 - Deep Aquifer" sections is out-of-date. More recent sampling results and review ofdata validation has clarified the issues discussed.
In the discussion on methylene chloride detected in the deep aquifer, its presence is attributed to the fact that "the Navy stated...methylene chloride was a laboratory contaminant because it was not detected consistently in all samples and was not detected at the same level in later samples." The most recent Draft RI Report provides additional discussion regarding the technical rationale for this argument.
Response to Comment 21: The text was edited to add a statement that more recent sampling results andreview of data validation has clarified the quality assurance/quality control questions and the Final RI report(June 1993) provides additional information.
Comment 22: On page 54 (Environmental Contamination and Other Hazards), section E (Physicaland Other Hazards), paragraph 2, two statements made in this paragraph provide apparentlyconflicting information. One statement is that "The only documented concern is the burning ordetonation of ordnance at Area 53 by the Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) group." The other isthat "According to the Initial Assessment Study, live ordnance is sent to the Yakima Firing Range fordisposal (1)." Clarification is needed as to whether ordnance is sent elsewhere for disposal or isburned/detonated at Area 53.
Response to Comment 22: According to the Navy, live ordnance is only sent to Yakima Firing Range fordisposal. Ordnance is only burned at Area 53, and contamination of surface and subsurface water orsediment has not been detected. The Navy will have the steel burn bins removed from Ponnell Point andcertify that the soil is inert.
Comment 23: On page 56, Table 22 (NAS Whidbey Island Potential Exposure Pathways); and page75 (Recommendations), recommendation #3, the Recommendations Section discusses a potentialexposure pathway that is not addressed on Table 22. The third recommendation is to "Providepertinent information to the affected community about exposure to hazardous substances that maybe associated with consumption of shellfish, fish, and seaweed from the waters around NAS." Onpage 56, Table 22 ("NAS Whidbey Island Potential Exposure Pathways") does not list fish in the rowentitled "Food Chain."
Response to Comment 23: The table was edited to add "fish" to the food chain pathway.
Comment 24: On page 67, "Food Chain", paragraph 1, the text states that arsenic detected inshellfish (up to 2.7 mg/kg) was at levels expected to cause adverse health effects. The comparisonvalue expected to cause adverse health effects is not provided, however, the text states that currentinformation at ATSDR shows that forms of arsenic found in shellfish are non-toxic. The twostatements are conflicting. The risks involved should be furthered clarified.
Response to Comment 24: The text was edited to clarify that arsenic (organic) at 2.7 mg/kg was not at alevel of health concern.
Comment 25: On page 75, "Recommendations", Item 3, the Seaplane Base areas under investigationalong Crescent Harbor have been closed to shell fishing.
Response to Comment 25: The text has been edited to reflect that information and the location of the posting. The areas are closed where "Contaminated shell-fish" signs are posted about 1,200 feet east of area 49 onCrescent Harbor, 100 feet east and west of a tidal creek (surface and seawater outflow). The signs wereposted because of elevated coliform counts and not because of hazardous waste contamination.
Comment 26: On page 75, "Recommendations", Item 7, proposed land use changes at NAS WhidbeyIsland are addressed through the environmental planning process, which includes NEPA (NationalEnvironmental Policy Act) compliance. Any land use change includes consideration of HW(hazardous waste) contamination.
Response to Comment 26: The Public Health Action Plan was edited to add that information.
Comment 27: We wish to register our concerns that the public health assessment apparently treatshealth risk of contaminated sites on base under the assumption that Naval Air Station WhidbeyIsland will continue to operate as an active military installation under the current boundariesforever. NAS Whidbey Island has featured in recent discussions of base closure and, indeed wasinitially listed on the 1991 closure list. The City of Oak Harbor has recently in included NASWhidbey Island within the planning jurisdiction of its Urban Development Zone. It should also benoted that US Army Fort Casey was also a permanent military installation until it closed and theentire facility now serves as a popular State Park with virtually unlimited public access. Thereforewe request that the public health assessment address the issue of converting areas presently managedby restricting access to public or private use.
Response to Comment 27: ATSDR is also concerned with land use changes and has made a recommendation(#7) that all land use changes (including transfers) be evaluated for exposure to site contaminants and thepotential for adverse health effects. Several regulations are in place (see comment 26 above) that shouldprevent unsuitable land transfers.
Comment 28: On page 77, "Recommendations", Item 10, most of these efforts have been carried outduring the RI/FS activities.
Response to Comment 28: The text has been edited to add this statement.
