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

PUBLIC HEALTH ASSESSMENT

WYCKOFF COMPANY/EAGLE HARBOR
EAGLE HARBOR OPERABLE UNITS
BAINBRIDGE ISLAND, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON


SUMMARY

The Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor site is a National Priorities List (NPL) site located on the east side ofBainbridge Island, Kitsap County, Washington. The Wyckoff facility (a wood-treating plantoriginally developed in the early 1900's) and Eagle Harbor (a shallow marine embayment) werelisted as one site on the NPL in 1987. To facilitate management of the site, the U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency (EPA) separated it into three operable units (OU). Wyckoff has become OU-2and the harbor has been divided into East Harbor OU-1 and West Harbor OU-3. Both of the harborOUs are comprised of the intertidal and subtidal areas of the harbor below mean high water. Thispublic health assessment addresses OU-1 and OU-3.

The village of Winslow, with a population of 2,822, is located on the north shore of the harbor. Theharbor is, however, developed to a large extent along both the north and south shorelines.

During the early 1900's the harbor was noted for its many shipbuilding facilities. Presently, themost significant use is the transport of vehicles and passengers on the Washington State Ferry systembetween Winslow and Seattle. The general public has easy access to the beaches. Fishing, crabbing,and clam digging have been (and for some people still are) common recreational activities.

The harbor has become contaminated with heavy metals, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), andpolynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) from the many years of ship repair and painting as wellas from the application of creosote, pentachlorophenol, and other wood preservatives to pilings. TheRemedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS) states that the major human health concern isconsumption of clam meat contaminated with PAHs. In 1985, the Bremerton/Kitsap County HealthDistrict (BKCHD) issued a health advisory against eating shellfish harvested from Eagle Harborbecause of chemical and bacterial contamination. This public health assessment has determined thatexposure to contaminants found in Eagle Harbor sediments, shellfish, fish, and crab is a healthhazard for those people who ignore the BKCHD's warnings.

Consumption patterns for other seafood, such as sea cucumbers and marine plants were not assessedin the RI/FS, or the 1990 sampling. The community has several concerns about the way samplingwas carried out during the RI/FS investigation. There are also concerns about people continuing touse the beaches and harvesting food from the harbor, even though BKCHD has posted warningsigns.

Human health exposure pathways of concern include ingestion of contaminated shellfish and otherseafood, and incidental ingestion of sediments.

Eagle Harbor poses a public health hazard from exposure to heavy metals, PAHs, and PCBs fromconsumption of fish, shellfish, and crab, and incidental ingestion of sediments. Chronic exposure tothese contaminants could cause damage to skin, kidneys, liver, central nervous system, or skeletalsystem. In addition, this exposure could result in an increased risk of cancer.

The Washington State Department of Health (DOH) is recommending education of those peopleusing the beaches and harvesting biota , and implementing institutional controls for commercialharvesting. DOH also recommends collection of additional data for biota not studied in the RI/FS.

The ATSDR Health Activities Recommendation Panel has reviewed the information regarding thispublic health assessment for further follow-up health actions. The panel has recommendedcommunity education, health professions education, and a review of the consumption survey toevaluate if additional health studies are indicated.

ATSDR, in cooperation with DOH, will re-evaluate new data as it becomes available. DOHpersonnel will be available for health consultation while remedial measures are carried out. DOHand BKCHD are planning community health education activities, and DOH will be presentinginformation for use by the area medical professionals. EPA is planning to begin some remedialwork and expects to include additional source and sediment sampling for dioxins during the remedial design phase.


BACKGROUND

In cooperation with the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), theWashington State Department of Health (DOH) will evaluate the public health significance of thissite. DOH will determine whether health effects are possible and will recommend actions to reduceor prevent possible adverse health effects. ATSDR, located in Atlanta, Georgia, is a federal agencywithin the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and is authorized by the ComprehensiveEnvironmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980 to conduct publichealth assessments at hazardous waste sites.

A. Site Description and History

Eagle Harbor is a small embayment located on the eastern side of Bainbridge Island, Kitsap County,Washington, in central Puget Sound (Figure 1, Appendix B). The bay is about two squarekilometers in area. Small marinas occupy the inner bay. The central and outer portions of theharbor are surrounded by residences, the Washington State Department of Transportation (DOT)ferry terminal and ferry maintenance facility, a marina repair facility, and the Wyckoff Companywood treatment facility.

The village of Winslow is located immediately north of the harbor, has a population of 2,822, and isthe principal center of population and commerce on the island. Since March 1991, the whole islandof Bainbridge has been incorporated and is now the "City of Bainbridge Island". Winslow is nowconsidered as a village within Bainbridge Island. The current population of the island isapproximately 15,000. Winslow maintains a public park and a pier west of an area called "TheRavine" by local people. A mercury contamination "hot spot" was discovered near there during theRemedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS).(1)

The upland area of Eagle Harbor was used as a Suquamish Indian village and burial site prior tonon-indian development. Eagle Harbor area was first settled in the 1870's, when there were still twolarge Indian encampments on the north shore. Boat building began at that time, and in the early1900's a large shipyard was started by the Hall brothers in the area now occupied by the EagleHarbor Condominiums, Bainbridge Marine Services, and the ferry maintenance facility. At thattime this shipyard was the largest ship-building facility on the West Coast. A brick yard wasestablished in the late 1800's at the present Wyckoff site. The first wood treating facility beganbefore 1910.

The largest industry on Bainbridge Island is the Wyckoff Company wood-treating plant on the southshore at the entrance to Eagle Harbor. Wood treatment operations have ceased at Wyckoff and thesite is currently not used. The only activities occurring at this time are related to site cleanup. Theseactivities include the continuing extraction of oil and contaminated ground water (with treatment ofground water), buried sludge removal, placement of additional wells, and initiation of RI/FSplanning. Other commercial facilities around the harbor include marinas, which provide boat fueland sewage disposal, boat repair companies, the ferry terminal, and an auto repair/wrecking yard.

Previous investigations by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology), and the United States EnvironmentalProtection Agency (EPA) have shown that sediments and clams in Eagle Harbor are contaminatedwith polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and heavy metals.(1) PAHs are a component offuel oil and creosote, which is used for wood treatment. Heavy metals were deposited into theharbor from sandblasting paint from boats and ships. NOAA also found PAH accumulation andlesions in the liver tissue of English Sole, a bottom fish. In 1985, the Bremerton-Kitsap CountyHealth District (BKCHD) issued a health advisory against eating shellfish from Eagle Harbor.(4)

The Wyckoff facility and Eagle Harbor were proposed as a Superfund site on EPA's NationalPriority List (NPL) in 1985 and was finally listed in 1987. The Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor Superfundsite is divided into three Operable Units (OU): 1) East Harbor OU-1, 2) Wyckoff Facility OU-2, and3) West Harbor OU-3.

In September of 1987, EPA contracted CH2M HILL to conduct the RI/FS of the Eagle Harbor OUs. This public health assessment addresses OU-1 and OU-3.

In September of 1992, EPA issued a Record Of Decision for OU-3. That document outlines theremedial measures which are to take place and how they are to be performed. There have been somerecent remedial actions on the Wyckoff OU-2 which have substantially reduced the flow ofcontaminants into Eagle Harbor.

B. Site Visit

On August 7, 1990, and September 11, 1990, site visits were conducted by Jack Morris and otherDOH staff. The first visit was aboard a DOH-owned boat, in which staff toured the harbor. Thetide was at its lowest point during the visit. The second visit was by automobile, and observationswere made prior to an evening meeting with the Association of Bainbridge Communities.

The following observations were made during the physical inspection of the harbor:

  • The shoreline areas are very easy to access; several people were seen"beachcombing".

  • Several signs have been posted by the BKCHD with warnings, in seven languages,against the consumption of shellfish, fish, and crab.

  • Despite the warning signs, DOH staff noted evidence, such as crab traps tied to piers, that people were collecting edible biota. Citizens volunteered information that there are people harvesting and/or growing clams, oysters, geoducks, and "sea lettuce" (a marine plant).

  • People were observed sailing, sailboarding, swimming, and scuba diving.

  • Several houseboats were observed anchored in the harbor.

  • Boat repair and painting is taking place in various locations.

  • Many species of wildlife were observed, including ducks, geese, gulls, crows, herons,songbirds, fish, and deer. Local residents noted the presence of a family of riverotters near the Eagle Harbor Condominiums and many eagles near Wing Point. Thearea known as "The Ravine" has a small stream which has recently been stockedwith salmon by a conservationist group.

  • A dry cleaner operation had many solvent barrels stacked alongside a driveway. There was also an unknown liquid waste draining across the driveway toward theneighboring property. The back of the building was above a cove and near a marina.

  • Area residents reported that a small marina on the southeast shore had apparentlyexperienced a petroleum spill, evidenced by an oily sheen on the water.

  • On the south shore, at the head of the harbor, is an auto repair/wrecking yard. Thereappeared to be drainage from the rear of the yard into the harbor, as evidenced by aline of lush grass across the yard and down to the edge of the embankment.

  • BKCHD staff report that Wyckoff company has started a test project for separationand treatment of wood preservatives from groundwater.

C. Demographics, Land Use, and Natural Resource Use

Demographics

The village of Winslow, located on the north shore of Eagle Harbor, has a population of 2,822. There is an elementary school and a High School near Winslow. McDonald School is still shown onmaps, but it has been abandoned for many years. A large rest home is located off Madison Avenue. According to information of the 1990 U.S. Census for Winslow, the residents there are of highersocioeconomic status than their neighbors in Kitsap County, and in the State of Washington as awhole. There is evidence that Winslow women have fewer children than women in Kitsap Countyand the State. The per capita income for Winslow is approximately one-third higher than for thestate, and the percentage of college graduates is almost twice the State average.(19)

Land Use

The most significant harbor use is the transport of vehicles and passengers on the Washington StateFerry system between Winslow and Seattle. Ferries leave the Winslow terminal 20 times a day fromearly morning (5:35 a.m.) until late at night (1:50 a.m.). The harbor is also used for moorage ofpleasure craft, house boats, and commercial vessels. Fishing, crabbing, and clam-digging have beencommon recreational activities. A few people still participate in these activities, despite warnings tothe contrary.(4)

Land use within the Eagle Harbor watershed is mainly residential and rural. A lesser area isoccupied by commercial development, and a small portion is devoted to industrial use, (Figure 2). At the head of "The Ravine" is a fairly new shopping center. Figure 3 shows Bainbridge Island andWinslow zoning map.

Residential areas within Winslow consist largely of single family residences on lots between 10,000and 15,000 square feet with some medium to high multiple density complexes. Kitsap Countyzoning for residential areas within the Eagle Harbor watershed varies from .25 to 2.5 acres perresidence.

Most commercial development is within Winslow. Industrial development occurs mainly alongEagle Harbor. The commercial zoning area includes the Winslow business district and the ferryterminal. The areas zoned as industrial (or manufacturing) include the ferry maintenance facility;Bainbridge Marine Services, a bulkhead construction company; Eagle Harbor Boatyard, a boatrepair company; Wyckoff Company; and marinas.

Natural Resource Use

Logging and berry farming were once common, but both have diminished greatly. Agriculture nowconsists of scattered truck crops, Christmas trees, and holly farms.(1)

The land surrounding the harbor is terraced to 200 feet of elevation, with five natural drainagesystems. Some of these are able to sustain anadromous fish runs.(1)

Eagle Harbor provides nursery and adult habitat for a variety of marine fish and invertebratespecies. Important fish and invertebrates include several flatfish species, scorpaenids (rockfish), surfperch (pile perch), gaddids (cod), hexagrammids (lingcod and greenlings), cancrid crabs, seacucumbers, squid, and pandalid shrimp. Several shellfish species are present in the intertidal andsubtidal areas. Chum salmon are reported to use Taylor Creek, located about 1500 feet west of theWyckoff site, as a spawning ground and nursery area. Lower intertidal areas near the mouth of thisstream have also been identified as an important producer of marine benthic prey organisms forjuvenile salmonid.(16) A local conservationist group has been restocking salmon to a feeder streamin "The Ravine" which empties into the harbor between the city park and Eagle Harbor Boatyard. Local citizens report that Cutthroat trout are known to be caught by sport fishermen and to usefeeder streams for spawning.

Washington State Department of Fisheries has permitted commercial harvest of perch, seacucumbers, and squid from Eagle Harbor.

The Suquamish Indian Tribe and other Washington Treaty tribes retain the right to harvest fish andhave habitat protected throughout the Puget Sound area. Eagle Harbor was an important shellfishharvest area for the Suquamish Tribe. The Suquamish Tribe, however, currently prohibitsceremonial and subsistence harvests of bivalves due to the contaminant levels detected in EagleHarbor, and does not anticipate opening the harbor to harvests of other shellfish species andbottomfish in the near future.

Local residents reported to DOH staff that they have seen members of the Asian populationharvesting "sea lettuce", a type of marine plant which is dried and consumed. The same residentsreported children swimming in the northeast portion of the harbor.

BKCHD, with assistance from DOH, conducted a study in 1990 to determine the actualconsumption of fish, shellfish, and other types of sea food from Eagle Harbor.(3)

D. Health Outcome Data

Washington State maintains three cancer registries and one birth defect registry. The CancerSurveillance System, located at the Fred Hutchinson Research Center in Seattle, provides data on allnewly-diagnosed malignancies occurring in residents of 13 counties, including Kitsap. TheWashington State Cancer Registry only began collecting information in January 1992, and does notinclude all of Western Washington. Therefore data is very limited. The third cancer registry, theSpokane Central Registry, is limited to the Spokane area in Eastern Washington.

The Washington State Birth Defects Registry is operated by DOH, and the data is statewide. Persons eligible for the registry are children born on or after January 1, 1986, who had congenitalconditions diagnosed by age four. Potential cases are identified from many sources includinghospital discharge indexes and birth, fetal death, and infant death certificates. Diagnoses are codedusing the British Pediatric Association codes.

These health outcome data are evaluated in the Public Health Implications section as appropriate.


COMMUNITY HEALTH CONCERNS

Several community organizations have human health and environmental concerns regarding EagleHarbor. DOH staff met with the largest group, known as the Association of BainbridgeCommunities (ABC), on September 11, 1990, to identify their concerns. Their information and datawere derived from member observations and from a review of the RI/FS by the ABC TechnicalAdvisory Committee. The ABC has procured grant money to be able to hire consultant assistance(Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc.) in reviewing the RI/FS technical documentation and toserve as members of a Technical Discussion Group chaired by the EPA. Concerns noted during the meeting with the ABC are as follows:

  • Public health issues have not been reviewed adequately, or accurately in some cases.

  • The RI contained many data gaps.

  • The risk assessment for mercury used incorrect reference dose data.

  • Quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) for fish tissue mercury analyses werepoor. Sampling should be redone and the risk assessment should address all seafoodconsumed from Eagle Harbor, including fish, crabs, shellfish, sea cucumbers, and sealettuce.

  • Only four samples have been collected and analyzed for dioxins and furans as part ofthe Eagle Harbor RI/FS. The ABC believes this represents too few samples andthere should be more extensive testing for these compounds.

  • The ABC questions the lack of sampling for air contaminants. The group believesair could be a possible source of contamination or exposure/migration pathway.

  • Boats and houseboats anchored in the harbor, with no sanitary sewerage or pump-outfacilities, are a potential source of pathogens and chemical contamination.

  • Spills of petroleum products from marinas have been noted by ABC members. Theyalso report that an on-the-water repair facility operates without a shoreline permit;presumably health issues at this marina have not been addressed.

  • ABC members are concerned about the dermal exposure hazards that exist for adults,children, and pets that use the waters and beaches of Eagle Harbor for recreation. There was concern that the pets could bring contaminants into the homes and to thechildren who play with them.

The Suquamish Tribe is involved in protecting fishery resource habitat areas throughout their usualand accustomed fishing area, which includes the waters of eastern Kitsap County, and in providinginformation as to whether fishery resources are safe for human consumption. Contamination of fishand shellfish in Eagle Harbor is of concern to the Tribe.

These noted community health concerns are evaluated in the Public Health Implications section.


ENVIRONMENTAL CONTAMINATION AND OTHER HAZARDS

The tables in this section list the contaminants of concern for the Eagle Harbor OUs. We evaluatethese contaminants in the subsequent sections of the health assessment and determine whetherexposure to them has public health significance. ATSDR and DOH select and discuss thesecontaminants based upon the following factors:

  1. Concentrations of contaminants on and off the site.

  2. Field data quality, laboratory data quality, and sample design.

  3. Comparison of on-site and off-site concentrations with background concentrations, ifavailable.

  4. Comparison of on-site and off-site concentrations with public health assessmentcomparison values for non-carcinogenic endpoints and carcinogenic endpoints. These comparison values are Environmental Media Evaluation Guides (EMEGs),Cancer Risk Evaluation Guides (CREGs), Reference Dose Media Evaluation Guides(RMEGs) and other relevant health-based guides.

  5. Community health concerns.

The listing of contaminants in this section does not necessarily mean they will cause adverse healtheffects from exposure. Instead, it only indicates which contaminants will be evaluated further in thepublic health assessment.

EMEGs are estimated contaminant concentrations in particular media at which daily exposurewould be unlikely to result in non-cancer health effects. An EMEG is calculated using a given bodyweight, an ingestion rate, and an ATSDR Minimal Risk Level (MRL). For comparison, the tablesshow EMEGs for child and adult exposure. ATSDR developed MRLs to evaluate health effects ofcontaminants commonly found at hazardous waste sites. MRLs are estimates of daily exposure tocontaminants below which non-cancer, adverse health effects are unlikely to occur. If no MRLexists for a contaminant, a comparison value is calculated from an EPA Reference Dose (RfD), anestimate of the daily exposure to a contaminant that is unlikely to cause non-cancer, adverse healtheffects. The resulting value is called an RMEG.

CREGs are estimated contaminant concentrations at which exposure would be unlikely to result inmore than one excess cancer in one million persons exposed for a lifetime of 70 years. A CREG iscalculated from EPA cancer slope factors, an adult body weight of 70 kg, and an accepted ingestionrate.

As noted in the Background section, Eagle Harbor has been given Operable Unit status. EagleHarbor is designated as the bay area, including subtidal and intertidal sediments. The Wyckoff siteis a separate Operable Unit, and contamination of the upland areas will be addressed in a separatepublic health assessment for that facility. Therefore, contamination from Wyckoff Co. is addressedhere only as it pertains to degradation of the harbor and to health effects resulting from contact withsea water, sediments, and the food chain.

To identify possible facilities that could contribute to contamination of the Eagle Harbor site, DOHsearched the Toxic Chemical Release Inventory (TRI) Database by zipcode for all available years(1987, 1988,1989, and 1990). TRI was developed by EPA from information regarding chemicalreleases into air, water, and soil, as provided according to law by certain industries. TRI containedinformation for eleven (11) documented instances of chemical releases into the air or water of EagleHarbor, all of which were from the Wyckoff Company.

The tables show concentrations as milligrams of contaminant per kilogram of sample (mg/kg).

A. On-Site Contamination

The contaminant concentration data presented here were collected by CH2M-HILL for EPA duringthe RI/FS in June 1988(1) and November/December 1990. The second sampling event was formethylmercury, the organic portion of the total mercury, and PAHs, which are compounds found inpetroleum products.

Ground water at the Wyckoff facility and sediment in the adjacent harbor are contaminated withPAHs. Heavy metals were found throughout the harbor, with the highest concentrations insediments near the north shore shipyard area. Metals such as mercury, lead, copper, and zincprobably originated from marine paint residue. Figure 4 indicates locations of potential sources ofcontaminants.

Due to past and present commercial, industrial, and residential waste disposal practices,contaminants have found their way into the waters of Eagle Harbor. Sand blasting wastescontaining paint apparently were discharged directly into the harbor, as evidenced by highconcentrations of mercury near the dry dock and marine railway and by the presence of paint chips. Upland soil surfaces were contaminated by spills and dumping of such materials as paint residues,petroleum products, and wood preservatives. Normal precipitation probably has carried thosecontaminants into and/or across the soil. Run-off from the various parking, storage, and workingareas washed contamination into the small feeder streams along the shorelines, or drained directlyinto the harbor. Deeper soils have received contaminants through a leaching process. Some of thesematerials have found points at which they can move horizontally through soils and seep out into theintertidal and subtidal sediments. Figure 5 is a conceptual diagram of how this process probablytook place.

Intertidal seeps contribute PAH contamination directly to the harbor along the beaches near theWyckoff facility. A secondary source could be runoff from the ferry terminal parking lot andstaging area. Recent petroleum spills, which may contribute to the PAH contamination, have beennoted by observant citizens.

Winslow had a municipal sewage disposal outfall located at the end of Madison Road west of thearea now occupied by the public park and pier and was in use from 1954 to 1978. A septic systemused by the housing project built during WWII on the present Waterfront Park site discharged to theharbor. This septic system was taken over by the city in 1949 and operated until 1954 when thetreatment plant (discharging from Madison) was completed. The shipyard discharged raw sewageinto the harbor. These drainages could have contributed PAH and metals directly to the harbor. Subtidal sediment samples indicate elevated concentrations of copper and lead near the outfall fromthe old septic system.

Tables 1 and 2 display maximum contaminant levels discovered from intertidal and subtidalsediments. There were no comparison values for total PAH, but there was a CREG forBenzo(a)pyrene, the most toxic of the PAHs. For a conservative comparison, the authors havetotaled the concentrations of all the carcinogenic PAHs and used the Benzo(a)pyrene CREG fordetermining chemicals of concern. No sampling data could be located for PCB in sediment or crab.

The comparison values developed for Table 1 are based upon a child exposure and the values inTable 2 are based upon an adult exposure, since scuba divers seemed to be the only logical exposedpopulation to deep sediments. The comparison values used for sediments are the same as those usedfor soil.

Table 1.

CONTAMINATION IN INTERTIDAL SEDIMENTS (1)
Contaminant Maximum Concentration (mg/kg) Comparison Value
mg/kg Source
PAH (total) 361 None None
Carcinogenic PAH 144.2 0.1 CREG
Antimony 19.5 20 RMEG
Arsenic 29.9 20
0.4
RMEG
CREG
Cadmium 2.6 10 EMEG
Copper 4,430 None None
Lead 1,150 None None
Mercury (total) 95 100 EMEG
Methylmercury 0.001 20 RMEG
Nickel 34 1,000 RMEG
Zinc 1,310 20,000 RMEG


Table 2.

CONTAMINATION IN SUBTIDAL SEDIMENTS (1)
Contaminant Maximum Concentration (mg/kg) Comparison Value
mg/kg Source
PAH (total) 379.8 None None
Carcinogenic PAH 277.4 0.1 CREG
Antimony 18.8 300 RMEG
Arsenic 31.9 200
0.4
RMEG
CREG
Cadmium 6.3 100 EMEG
Copper 946 None None
Lead 222 None None
Mercury (total) 1.8 1000 EMEG
Methylmercury 0.001 200 RMEG
Nickel 40 10,000 RMEG
Zinc 313 200,000 RMEG

Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Sediments

Most areas in Eagle Harbor have PAH concentrations in sediment that are above those atbackground stations or Puget Sound reference locations. The "hot spot" identified by Malins et al.(1985) and further defined during the Preliminary Investigation (station EH-08;Tetra Tech, 1986b)has concentrations of PAHs ten times or more higher than other parts of the harbor. The highestconcentrations of PAHs in intertidal sediment were observed on the east and north sides of theWyckoff facility, in the vicinity of the creosoted pilings of the ferry terminal, and near the formershipyard on the north shore of the harbor. See Figure 6 for PAH sampling points and concentrations.

Metals in Sediment

The highest concentrations of metals were observed in the location of the north shore shipyard,currently occupied by Bainbridge Marine Services (Figure 2). The metals of potential concern forthe RI/FS samples were antimony (Sb), arsenic (As), cadmium (Cd), copper (Cu), lead (Pb),mercury (Hg), nickel (Ni), and zinc (Zn). This list was derived based upon historical use of theharbor for ship building and sand blasting paint from hulls, and because of known toxicity of thesemetals.(1) The sediment sample from station EH-007H had abundant weathered paint residue andapparent sand blast grit. See Tables 1 and 2 for maximum concentrations of metals.

Intertidal background stations were located near Wing Point (transects 1,2, and 3) and RockawayBeach south of the Wyckoff facility (transects 14, 15, and 16). See Figure 6 for location.

Subtidal background stations for the March 1988 sediment sampling were located within PortMadison and Yukon Harbor (Figure 7). The ten background stations were selected to match asclosely as possible the ranges of grain size, total organic carbon, and sulfides reported from EagleHarbor in the EPA Preliminary Inspection.

Contaminants in Clam Tissue

The highest concentrations of PAHs in clam tissue were observed near the creosoted pilings by theferry terminal and near the Wyckoff facility. Clams were scarce or absent from some stationslocated along the north and east sides of the Wyckoff facility and along the west side of the formernorth shore shipyard area. This prevented the measurement of concentrations of PAHs and metals inclam tissue from those areas. See Table 3 for concentrations and calculated comparison values.Please note that these EMEGs are conservative and are only used to decide which compounds to review further.

Table 3.

CONTAMINANTS IN CLAM TISSUES (18)
Contaminant Maximum Concentration (mg/kg) Comparison Value
mg/kg Source
PAH (total) 3.2 None None
Carcinogenic PAH 0.364 105.9
52.98
0.00064
EMEG (adult)
EMEG (child)
CREG
Carbazole 0.010 None None
Antimony 14.4 0.4
0.21
EMEG (adult)
EMEG (child)
Arsenic 6.65 0.32
0.159
0.0026
EMEG (adult)
EMEG (child)
CREG
Cadmium 1.61 0.21
0.106
EMEG (adult)
EMEG (child)
Copper 204 None None
Lead 11.2 None None
Methylmercury 0.075 0.32
0.159
EMEG (adult)
EMEG (child)
Nickel 53.3 21.19
10.6
EMEG (adult)
EMEG (child)
PCB 0.396 0.0053
0.0027
0.0006
EMEG (adult)
EMEG (child)
CREG
Zinc 130 317.9
158.95
EMEG (adult)
EMEG (child)


Table 4.

CONTAMINANTS IN FISH TISSUES (18)
Contaminant Maximum Concentration muscle tissue (mg/kg) Comparison Value
mg/kg Source
Carcinogenic PAH 0.172 105.9
52.98
0.00064
EMEG (adult)
EMEG (child)
CREG
NCAC * N/D ----- -----
PCB 0.242 0.0053
0.0027
0.0006
EMEG (adult)
EMEG (child)
CREG
Methylmercury 0.372 (Apr 91) 0.32
0.159
EMEG (adult)
EMEG (child)
* NCAC = Nitrogen Containing Aromatic Compounds (Carbazole, etc.)
N/D = None Detected


Table 5.

CONTAMINANTS IN CRAB TISSUES (18)
Contaminant Maximum Concentration muscle tissue (mg/kg) Maximum Concentration Hepatopancreas (mg/kg) Comparison Value
mg/kg Source
Carcinogenic PAH 0.304 0.158 105.9
52.98
0.00032
EMEG (adult)
EMEG (child)
CREG
Methylmercury 0.263 0.073 0.32
0.159
EMEG (adult)
EMEG (child)
NCAC * N/S N/S ---- ----
* NCAC = Nitrogen Containing Aromatic Compounds (Carbazole, etc.)
N/S = Not Sampled

B. Off-Site Contamination

Development of upland areas around Eagle Harbor for commercial, industrial, and residentialpurposes has caused contamination of soils, surface water, and ground water. Most of thiscontamination has been due to spills of petroleum products, wood preservatives, and paint residues. The upland areas around Wyckoff will be reviewed in another health assessment because it is aseparate Operable Unit.

C. Quality Assurance and Quality Control

In preparing this public health assessment, DOH relies on the information provided in the referenceddocuments and assumes that adequate quality assurance and quality control measures were followedwith regard to chain of custody, laboratory procedures, and data reporting. The validity of theanalysis and conclusions drawn for this public health assessment are determined by thecompleteness, relevance and reliability of the referenced information.

According to the RI/FS, quality assurance reviews were conducted on all chemical data followingEPA guidelines. All quality assurance reports were reviewed by the Quality Assurance Managerand are included as appendices in the RI/FS Data Report (CH2M HILL, 1989a; 1989b). Some ofthe data were qualified for use as estimates only.

D. Physical and Other Hazards

Hazards associated with Eagle Harbor include the usual boating and swimming safety problems. Children swim unsupervised, scuba divers use areas of heavy boat traffic, and the city-owned publicpier has no safety railing because it is intended mainly for tying up boats. Hazardous litter, such as cans and broken bottles were noted.


PATHWAYS ANALYSES

This section will focus on the migration of contaminants and how human exposure may occur. Todetermine if human populations are exposed to contaminants migrating from the site, ATSDR andDOH evaluate the environmental and human activities that lead to human exposure. This pathwayanalysis consists of five elements: A source of contamination, transport through environmentalmedia such as soil and water, points of human exposure, routes of human exposure such asinhalation and ingestion, and an exposed population.

An exposure pathway can be eliminated if at least one of the five elements is missing and will neverbe present. ATSDR categorizes an exposure pathway as completed or potential if the exposurepathway cannot be eliminated. Completed pathways have all the five elements and indicate thatexposure to a contaminant has occurred in the past, is occurring presently, or will occur in thefuture. Potential pathways, however, have at least one of the five elements missing, but the pathwaycould exist. Potential pathways indicate that exposure to a contaminant could have occurred in thepast, could be occurring now, or could occur in the future. Table 6 identifies the completed exposure pathways, and Table 7 identifies the potential exposure pathways.

Table 6.

COMPLETED EXPOSURE PATHWAYS
Pathway Name

Exposure Pathway Elements

Time
Source Environmental Media Point of Exposure Route of Exposure Exposed Population
Intertidal Sediments Seeps and Outfalls Sediment Beaches Ingestion Beach Recreationists Past Present Future
Clam Sediments Clam Tissue Residence Ingestion Consumers Past Present Future
Fish Sediments and Pilings Fish Muscle Residence Ingestion Consumers Past Present Future
Crab Sediments Crab Muscle and Hepatopancreas Residence Ingestion Consumers Past Present Future


Table 7.

POTENTIAL EXPOSURE PATHWAYS
Pathway Name Exposure Pathway Elements Time
Source Environmental Media Point of Exposure Route of Exposure Exposed Population
Subtidal Sediments Seeps Sediments Harbor Floor Ingestion and dermal contact Scuba Divers Past Present Future

A. Completed Exposure Pathways

Intertidal Sediment Pathway

Past, current, and future exposure pathways are possible from PAH, heavy metal, and probably PCBcontamination of the intertidal sediments. People have been observed walking and playing on thebeaches during site visits and during a fish consumption survey. Conceivably, the population ofWinslow, as well as visitors to the area, could receive exposure through this use of the beach. Recently, a nationally circulated travel magazine (Sunset, July 1990) promoted visiting Winslow asa place to walk along the shoreline and use Waterfront Park "with a new fishing pier and low-tidebeach".

Clam, Fish, & Crab Pathways

Numerous signs, as stated in the site visit section, clearly warn in several languages not to consumeshellfish, crab, and bottomfish because of pollution. However, during the fish consumption surveymentioned above, approximately 15 per cent of the people surveyed were still planning to eat theircatch, which included fish, crab, and other marine biota.

Consumable biota living near, on, or in Eagle Harbor sediments can accumulate contaminants andare of special concern for human safety. Shellfish, crabs, fish, squid, sea cucumbers, sea lettuce, anda type of worm found attached to pilings are known to have been harvested from Eagle Harbor. Fishing frequency, according to the survey, was 1 to 4 times per month for 84% of the peoplesurveyed. Other data from the survey show that 55% of persons harvesting biota were under 19years of age, 92% were caucasian, and 42% were local residents.

Exposure duration and frequency appear to be short and infrequent according to people answeringconsumption survey questions. Fish were somewhat small, difficult to catch, and eaten onlyoccasionally.

B. Potential Exposure Pathways

DOH personnel noted a scuba diver during one site visit, and a salvage diver was interviewed byBKCHD staff during the fish consumption survey. Data regarding possible ingestion and dermalcontact with subtidal contaminants by divers was unavailable. Therefore, this is considered as a potential exposure pathway.


PUBLIC HEALTH IMPLICATIONS

Introduction

In this section of the health assessment we will discuss the health effects in persons exposed tospecific contaminants, evaluate state and local health outcome databases, and address specificcommunity health concerns.

A. Toxicological Evaluation

To evaluate health effects, ATSDR has developed Minimal Risk Levels (MRL) for non-cancerouscontaminants commonly found at hazardous waste sites. The MRL is an estimate of daily humanexposure to a contaminant, below which, noncancer, adverse health effects are unlikely to occur. MRLs are developed for each route of exposure, such as ingestion and inhalation, and for the lengthof exposure, such as acute (less than 14 days), intermediate (15 to 364 days), and chronic (greaterthan 364 days). Chronic MRLs are used in this health assessment whenever possible. ATSDRpresents these MRLs in Toxicological Profiles. These chemical-specific profiles provide informationon health effects, environmental transport, human exposure, and regulatory status. In some casesMRLs are not available and an EPA reference dose (RfD) is used. A RfD is an estimate of the dailyexposure to a contaminant that is unlikely to cause non-cancer, adverse health effects. Forcompounds that have been classified as carcinogenic (cancer causing), EPA has developed cancerslope values for calculation of the potential risk. In order to perform the calculation, adequate datamust be available for level, frequency, and length of exposure. The calculated cancer risk is anestimate of the excess cancer risk in an exposed population.

It is important to understand that the following discussions regarding specific compounds and thecalculated exposure doses are based upon maximum contaminant levels and a "worst case scenario". The reader should recognize that the use of the maximum detected concentration of a contaminant tocalculate the exposure dose may result in an overestimate of actual exposure. Since many of thefishermen interviewed by the BKCHD survey were youngsters, the exposure doses used here arecalculated for child and adult.

For a conservative analysis of the possible exposures the authors used the following assumptions:

  • Sediment ingestion rate = 100 mg/day (child), 50 mg/d (adult)
  • Body Weight for Child = 16 kg, for adult = 70 kg
  • Intertidal Sediment exposure = 2 days/wk for 30 yrs
  • Subtidal sediment exposure = 2 days/mo for 30 yrs
  • Fish, clam, and crab exposure = 2 meals(1/2 pound each)/mo for 9 yrs
  • Tissue ingestion rate = 7.5 g/day (child), 15 g/day (adult)

In order to evaluate health implications of exposure to the contaminated media, an exposure dose iscalculated and then compared to the MRL or RfD, or a cancer risk is calculated. When calculatingthe exposure dose you must have a contaminant concentration, an ingestion rate, and body weight. Where exposure is intermittent, you must also have an exposure factor which will adjust the dose forless than daily exposure. Cancer risk values are factored for a 30 year exposure over a lifetime of70 years.

Where estimated daily exposure doses exceed MRLs or RfDs, we further compare them with NoObserved Adverse Effect Levels (NOAELs) and Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Levels(LOAELs). Data from human studies are used preferentially, but animal studies can be used toindicate possible human health effects. It should be noted that there are uncertainties when usingthese estimated doses and NOAELs, and in some cases the exposure is above or below by a factor of10. This small difference may or may not be protective for sensitive individuals or populations.

Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons

There is no chronic MRL or RfD available for total PAH compounds. All of the carcinogenic PAHswere totaled for a maximum concentration level in the calculation of an exposure dose. The PAHexcess lifetime cancer risk levels were calculated to be in the range of 1 excess case in 100,000persons exposed for a lifetime of 70 years for all the media investigated. The Cancer Slope Factorfor benzo(a)pyrene was used to evaluate total carcinogenic PAHs. Benzo(a)pyrene is likely to bethe most potent carcinogen of the PAHs at the site. Therefore, risk is possibly overestimated.

Non-carcinogenic PAHs were also evaluated separately. Estimated daily exposure doses were farbelow RfDs. Total PAH concentrations were used to estimate exposure doses and compared withRfDs for non-carcinogenic health effects. Those exposure doses were also below RfDs establishedfor non-carcinogenic PAHs.

Carbazole

Several databases were searched for toxicological data on Carbazole. The Hazardous SubstancesData Bank had information about treatment of poisoned patients, but no toxicological values. Estimated daily exposure doses were very small and cancer risk was calculated to be 1 excess casein 1 billion persons exposed for a lifetime to the levels found at this site.

Metals

Antimony, Arsenic, Cadmium, and Nickel exceeded the respective MRLs and Rfds in the clampathway but not in the sediment pathway. Fish and crab were not sampled for heavy metals. Copperand lead levels are also discussed below.

Estimated adult and child daily exposure doses for Antimony exceeded the RfD (0.0004 mg/kg/day)by a magnitude of 10. However, when compared with NOAEL and LOAEL values the dailyexposure doses were below by a magnitude of 10. Antimony has caused vomiting and diarrhea afteracute oral human exposure to doses 10 fold higher than those seen here. No human studies werelocated regarding cardiovascular, hepatic (liver), neurological, cancer, developmental, reproductive,or hematological effects from oral exposure.(6) Therefore, comparison was with animal studies. Based on this information, adverse health effects could be expected in sensitive individuals.

Arsenic has a Rfd of 0.0003 mg/kg/day. The estimated daily exposure doses for sediments werebelow the Rfd, but for clam tissue exceeded the RfD by a factor of 10. According to the ATSDRToxicological Profile for Arsenic, organic arsenic can be found in seafood (called fish arsenic) whichis essentially nontoxic. The authors could not find a notation in the RI/FS regarding differentiationof the organic or inorganic arsenic in tissue. Oral exposure to the concentration levels found in clamtissues from Eagle Harbor could cause adverse human health effects if the arsenic is inorganic as wehave assumed. The expected effects would be gastrointestinal, hematological, neurological, anddermal. Perhaps the single most characteristic effect of long-term oral exposure to inorganic arsenicis a pattern of skin changes, including darkening of the skin and the appearance of small "corns" or"warts" on the palms, soles, and torso. Gastrointestinal irritation, including nausea, vomiting,diarrhea, and abdominal pain has been noted from long-term, low-dose exposure. The Departmentof Health and Human Services has determined that arsenic and certain arsenic compounds arecarcinogens. Excess lifetime cancer risk from shellfish ingestion was calculated to be 1 excess casein 10,000 persons exposed for a lifetime.(7)

Estimated cadmium daily exposure doses for a child and adult slightly exceeded the MRL of 0.0002mg/kg/day, but were below human cardiovascular and renal NOAEL levels by about a factor of 10. Cadmium has no known beneficial function in the human body. Most cadmium in the body is storedin the kidneys and liver. Nutritional factors affect the amount of cadmium absorbed. Persons withlow calcium, protein, or iron reserves absorb cadmium more efficiently and may be at increased riskof developing toxicity. EPA classifies cadmium as a probable carcinogen when inhaled.(8)Cadmium could not be evaluated quantitatively for cancer risk from ingestion. Based on thisinformation, sensitive individuals could exhibit adverse health effects.

According to reported human studies, the estimated daily exposure doses for ingestion of nickel inshellfish are enough to cause adverse dermal and ocular effects.(22)

The National Academy of Science (NAS) has recommended that 2-3 mg of copper is a safe andadequate daily intake. This provides enough copper for adult nutrition. The highest estimated dailyexposure dose was below this level for a child eating shellfish. At the concentrations noted in EagleHarbor no adverse human health effects would be anticipated.(20)

Daily lead exposure doses for 1) a child ingesting sediments, 2) child and adult ingestion of shellfishwere above levels which have caused adverse health effects in laboratory animals. Effects noted inlab studies at these levels included impaired heme synthesis, decreased glycogen and RNA,alterations of oxidizing enzymes, disruption of conditioned responses and motor activity, dystrophyof Leydig cells, and increase in systolic blood pressure.(21)

Methylmercury

The sampling which took place during the Remedial Investigation tested only for total mercury. InNovember and December of 1990, a second sampling took place to measure levels ofmethylmercury, which is the organic form caused by natural processes in microorganisms, and ismore of a health concern. This form of mercury can bioaccumulate in fish when they eat organismswhich take in mercury found on or in sediments. Organic mercury in contaminated fish or otherfoods enters the bloodstream easily and goes rapidly to other parts of the body. Organic mercurycan change to inorganic mercury in the brain and remain there for a long time. Exposure doses for achild eating fish and crab muscle were approximately equal to the Rfd, which is 0.0003 mg/kg/day,but were below a NOAEL by a factor of 10. This may not be enough of a safety factor for sensitiveindividuals and there could be a possibility of adverse human health effects.(5)

Polychlorinated Biphenyls

PCB daily exposure doses exceeded the Chronic MRL for adult and child ingestion scenarios for fishand shellfish. The adult doses exceeded by a factor of 10 and the child doses by a factor of 100. The child exposure doses were at the NOAEL for developmental effects in laboratory animals.

PCBs are a family of 209 chemicals with varying numbers of chlorine atoms. They are verypersistent in the environment. They can be found in fish and animal fat, bioconcentrate in the foodchain, and normally separate from water and adsorb to sediments. Excretion of PCBs is slow, sobioaccumulation occurs even at low exposure levels. PCBs can be pasted to infants through breastmilk. In humans, PCB toxicity affects the skin and liver, and may have developmental effects. Reported symptoms of chronic exposure with hepatic (liver) involvement have included weight loss,anorexia, nausea, vomiting, jaundice, and abdominal pain. On the basis of data from animal studies,EPA considers PCBs to be probable human carcinogens.(9, 24, 25) Cancer risk was estimated to be1 excess case in 100,000 persons exposed for a lifetime.

B. Health Outcome Data Evaluation

Of the three cancer registries maintained in Washington State, the Cancer Surveillance System at theFred Hutchinson Research Center is the only one with any data from Kitsap County. Noinformation was available specifically for Eagle Harbor or Winslow. Thus, it is not possible todetermine from this data if the site does or does not have an impact on the incidence of cancer in thesurrounding community.

Briefly, the cancer incidence rates for Kitsap County are generally consistent with those observed inthe other 12 comparison counties. The proportional incidence of breast cancer among femaleresidents of Bainbridge Island is higher than in the comparison areas, but very similar to that ofresidents of Mercer Island in King County, where the socioeconomic status is also very similar.(19)

C. Community Health Concerns Evaluation

We have addressed each of the community concerns about health as follows:

  1. "Public health issues have not been reviewed adequately, or accurately in some cases"
  2. Public health issues in the Eagle Harbor area, prior to the 1990 meeting with ABC, werefocused upon the possibility of people consuming contaminated shellfish. This healthassessment has reviewed data regarding shellfish, fish, crab, sediments, physical hazards, andother potential health problems. There are still some data gaps which need to be addressed,but through the consumption study and the second mercury sampling, it appears the presentinformation is adequate and accurate.

  3. "The RI contained many data gaps".
  4. See response to #1 above.

  5. "The risk assessment for mercury used incorrect reference dose data".
  6. The original risk assessment was done using data for total mercury. EPA has dealt with themercury issue by having a second sampling, after which, concentrations of organic mercurywere studied and a revised risk assessment was accomplished in May 1991.

  7. "Quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) for fish tissue mercury analyses werepoor. Sampling should be redone and the risk assessment should address all seafoodconsumed from Eagle Harbor including fish, crabs, shellfish, sea cucumbers, and sealettuce".
  8. The resampling of fish for methylmercury should have addressed the QA/QC issue. However, the sea cucumbers and other biota which may be collected from Eagle Harborremain a data gap. Also, the fish and crab tissues were not sampled for heavy metals, suchas antimony, arsenic, or cadmium.

  9. "Only four samples have been collected and analyzed for dioxins and furans as partof the Eagle Harbor RI/FS. The ABC believes this represents too few samples andthere should be more extensive testing for these compounds".
  10. EPA expects to include additional source and sediment sampling during the remedial designphase.

  11. "The ABC questions the lack of sampling for air contaminants. The group believesair could be a possible source of contamination or exposure/migration pathway".
  12. After researching the available data, it appears this is probably not a contributing factor tothe harbor contamination.

  13. "Boats and houseboats anchored in the harbor, with no sanitary sewerage or pump-out facilities, are a potential source of pathogens and chemical contamination".
  14. We agree with this statement, although the issue of private sanitary facilities appears to beone of enforcement for either BKCHD or Washington State Department of Ecology.

  15. "Spills of petroleum products from marinas have been noted by ABC members. They also report that an on-the-water repair facility operates without a shorelinepermit; presumably health issues at this marina have not been addressed".
  16. If these marinas and repair facilities are in violation of laws or regulations, the properagencies need to be notified to bring about corrective action (i.e., Washington StateDepartment of Ecology, BKCHD, or Coast Guard).

  17. "ABC members are concerned about the dermal exposure hazards that exist foradults, children, and pets that use the waters and beaches of Eagle Harbor forrecreation. There was concern that the pets could bring contamination into thehomes and to the children who play with them".
  18. After study of the available data, there does not appear to be a plausible dermal pathway. Only the child ingestion scenario of intertidal sediments exceeded noncarcinogenic healthguidelines in the above toxicological evaluation section. The harbor water was sampled in1989 by Ecology and did not have elevated contaminant levels for metals or PAHs.

The public was officially invited to review and comment on this draft health assessment during theperiod of August 18, 1993 to September 18, 1993. The document was made available at theregional library in Winslow. Copies were also mailed to several people who requested their own. Anews release was distributed to 6 newspapers in the area, including Bremerton, Silverdale, andSeattle. An article appeared in the Sun (Bremerton) on 9-5-93 which briefly described the publichealth assessment and the opportunity to comment. As of October 7, 1993, the Department ofHealth did not receive any comments from the public regarding this public health assessment draft.


CONCLUSIONS

  1. Eagle Harbor poses a public health hazard from long-term exposure to from eating fish,shellfish, and crab, and incidental ingestion of sediments contaminated with antimony,arsenic, cadmium, nickel, lead, methylmercury, PAHs, and PCBs at levels which couldcause adverse health effects. Chronic exposure to these metals and compounds could causedamage to skin, kidneys, liver, central nervous system, or skeletal system. In addition, this exposure could result in an increased risk of cancer.

  2. The RI did not address several biota which are harvested from Eagle Harbor for humanconsumption. These include sea cucumbers, squid, sea lettuce, cutthroat trout, and shrimp. Sea cucumbers and perch have been commercially harvested from Eagle Harbor throughpermits from Washington State Department of Fisheries.

  3. Data gaps remain for heavy metals in fish and crab. Also, PCBs were discovered in fish during the second sampling for mercury, but was not analyzed in other media.

  4. Although there are several signs around the harbor warning of the danger of consuming fish,shellfish, and crab, many people interviewed during a consumption survey did not knowthere was a pollution problem.

  5. Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons are currently being discharged to the harbor viasubsurface seeps from the Wyckoff facility, although the seepage rate has been greatlyreduced. There has been a concerted effort to locate and reduce contaminant sources.

  6. Occasional use of beaches does not appear to be an elevated health risk from incidental ingestion or skin contact with sediments.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Cease/Reduce Exposure Recommendations

  1. Prevent, as soon as possible, further migration of PAHs, PCBs, and heavy metals fromentering Eagle Harbor.

  2. Locate and educate, as soon as possible, current consumers of clams or other biota which are being commercially or recreationally harvested from Eagle Harbor.

  3. Implement institutional controls immediately to prevent commercial harvest of seacucumbers, squid, perch, or any other biota from Eagle Harbor.

  4. Locate and educate, as soon as possible, groups and individual users of Eagle Harbor. Forinstance, this could be through newsletters to marinas, tackle shops, and SCUBA supplyoutlets. Since there was information that people of an Asian population gathered sea lettuce, steps should be taken to inform them of the possible health effects.

Site Characterization Recommendations

  1. Obtain additional data for heavy metals in fish and crab. Also, obtain additional data for furans and PCBs in sediments, crab, and shellfish.

  2. Obtain additional data, as soon as possible, for sea cucumber and sea lettuce, which was not analyzed in the RI. They should be analyzed for PAH, organic mercury, metals, and PCBs.

Health Activities Recommendation Panel (HARP) Recommendations

The data and information developed in the Wyckoff Company/Eagle Harbor Public HealthAssessment have been evaluated by the ATSDR Health Activities Recommendation Panel (HARP)for consideration of follow-up health activities. In addition to suggested changes to the public healthassessment, the panel offers the following recommendations:

  1. Because many persons who visit the area are not aware of or show concern for the potential for exposure at this site, a community education effort should be made.

  2. Health professions education.

  3. Review of the consumption survey is needed to evaluate if additional health studies are indicated.

When additional data become available, ATSDR and DOH will reevaluate this site for any indicated follow-up health actions.


PUBLIC HEALTH ACTIONS

Based upon conclusions and recommendations from the Public Health Assessment for the EagleHarbor Operable Units and HARP, ATSDR has developed the following public health actionswhich ATSDR, in cooperation with DOH, will conduct:

1. As additional environmental data becomes available, ATSDR will re-evaluate the Eagle HarborOperable Units for necessary follow-up health activities.

2. DOH Health Education staff and BKCHD are working together to plan and carry out communityhealth education activities. DOH will propose an educational strategy to ATSDR Division ofHealth Education by October 1, 1993. Several educational activities are being considered.

3. Under an existing cooperative agreement for health professional education, DOH will produce afact sheet about Eagle Harbor and distribute it to health professionals in Kitsap County. DOH willalso present information about Eagle Harbor at an environmental health workshop for KitsapCounty nurses on August 31, 1993.

4. As remedial measures are implemented (dredging,capping,etc.) DOH personnel will be availablefor health consultation where needed.

5. DOH and Department of Fisheries are negotiating a closure for commercial harvest of seacucumber and possibly squid.

6. The ATSDR Division of Health Studies will review the consumption survey to determine ifadditional health studies are indicated.

Activities from other agencies or companies include:

1. EPA has issued a Record of Decision (ROD) for remediation of the West Harbor OU-3 and isproceeding on an interim ROD for the East Harbor OU-1. Remedial work, which includes cappingin areas, continued institutional controls, increased public education, and monitoring of seafoodcontamination, is scheduled to begin soon.

2. The Wyckoff Company has discontinued all wood treatment at the facility and is activelyworking on site cleanup, such as collection and treatment of ground water.

3. EPA expects to include additional source and sediment sampling for dioxins during the remedial design phase.


PREPARERS OF THE REPORT

Preparer of Report:

JOHN (JACK) MORRIS, R. S.
Public Health Advisor
Washington State Department of Health

FRANK WESTRUM, M.S., R.S.
Supervisor, Hazardous Waste Section
Washington State Department of Health


ATSDR Regional Representative:
Gregory D. Thomas
Senior Regional Representative
Office of Regional Operations, Region X


ATSDR Technical Project Officer:

Richard R. Kauffman, M.S.
Technical Project Officer
Remedial Programs Branch, State Programs Section
Division of Health Assessment and Consultation


CERTIFICATION

This Wyckoff Company/Eagle Harbor Public Health Assessment was prepared by the WashingtonDepartment of Health under a cooperative agreement with the Agency for Toxic Substances andDisease Registry (ATSDR). It is in accordance with approved methodology and procedures existingat the time the public health assessment was begun.

Richard R. Kauffman, M.S.
Technical Project Officer
Remedial Programs Branch
Division of Health Assessment and Consultation (DHAC)
ATSDR


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

Robert C. Williams, P.E., DEE
Director, DHAC, ATSDR


REFERENCES

  1. CH2M Hill/EPA , Remedial Investigation Report for Eagle Harbor Site, Kitsap County,Washington, volumes 1 and 2, 1989.

  2. CH2M Hill/EPA, Technical Discussion Group Review Draft Feasibility Study for EagleHarbor Operable Unit, Kitsap County, Washington, 1990.

  3. Kitsap County Health District, Eagle Harbor Fisherman and Shellfish Collector Survey,1990.

  4. Site Visits on 8-7-90 and 9-11-90. Meetings and telephone conversations with KitsapCounty Health District staff, the Association of Bainbridge Communities, and citizens living in the condominiums on the north shore.

  5. ATSDR, Toxicological Profile for Mercury, 1993.

  6. ATSDR, Toxicological Profile for Antimony, 1991.

  7. ATSDR, Toxicological Profile for Arsenic, 1992.

  8. ATSDR, Toxicological Profile for Cadmium, 1992.

  9. ATSDR, Polychlorinated Biphenyl (PCB) Toxicity, Case Studies in EnvironmentalMedicine #12, 1990.

  10. National Library of Medicine, MEDLARS electronic data system, Hazardous SubstancesData Bank (HSDB), 1990.

  11. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Guidelines for the Health Risk Assessment ofChemical Mixtures. Federal Register, 51:34014-41, 1986e.

  12. Hart Crowser, Contaminant Deposition and Sediment Recovery, Eagle Harbor Site, KitsapCounty, Washington, draft, prepared for Washington State Department of Transportation,Seattle Washington, March 1989.

  13. Lindsay, W.L., Chemical Equilibria in Soils, New York: John L. Wiley and Sons, 1979.

  14. Malins, D.C., et al, Toxic chemicals in sediments and biota from a creosote-polluted harbor:relationships with hepatic neoplasms and other hepatic lesions in English sole (Parophrysvetulus), Carcinogenesis, 6:1463-1469, 1985.

  15. Tetra Tech, Inc., Preliminary Investigation, Eagle Harbor, Bainbridge Island, Washington,Prepared for Black & Veatch, Engineers-Architects under contract with the WashingtonState Department of Ecology, Bellevue, Washington, 1986b.

  16. Whitney and Assoc., Draft EIS for Bainbridge Island Boat Yard, Eagle Harbor, Kitsap Co., Washington, for Kitsap Co. Dept. of Community Development, 1981.

  17. CH2M Hill/EPA, Revised Risk Assessment for Eagle Harbor Operable Unit, 1991.

  18. CH2M Hill/EPA, Eagle Harbor Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study, TechnicalMemorandum 13, Marine Biota Tissue Sampling and Analysis, 1991.

  19. Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, letter to DOH from Charles Wiggins, M.S.P.H.,July, 1992.

  20. ATSDR Toxicological Profile for Copper, 1990

  21. ATSDR Toxicological Profile for Lead, 1992

  22. ATSDR Toxicological Profile for Nickel, 1992

  23. ATSDR Toxicological Profile for Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons, 1990

  24. National Library of Medicine, TOMES electronic data system for IRIS, 1990.

  25. ATSDR Toxicological Profile for selected PCBs, 1989.

APPENDIX A:

LIST OF ACRONYMS
ABC Association of Bainbridge Communities
ATSDR Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
BKCHD Bremerton Kitsap County Health District
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act
CREG Cancer Risk Evaluation Guide
DOH Washington State Department of Health
DOT Washington State Department of Transportation
Ecology Washington State Department of Ecology
EMEG Environmental Media Evaluation Guide
EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
HARP Health Activities Review Panel
HSDB Hazardous Substances Data Bank
kg Kilogram
LOAEL Lowest Observed Adverse Effects Level
mg Milligram
MRL Minimal Risk Level
NOAEL No Observed Adverse Effects Level
NOAA National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration
NPL National Priorities List
OU Operable Unit
PAH Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbon (also Polycyclic)
PCB Polychlorinated Biphenyl
QA/QC Quality Assurance/Quality Control
RfD Reference Dose
RI/FS Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
ROD Record of Decision
TRI Toxic Release Inventory


APPENDIX B: FIGURES

Map of the general location and regional setting
Figure 1. Map of the general location and regional setting.

Location of industrial and commercial facilities
Figure 2. Location of industrial and commercial facilities.

Zoning map
Figure 3. Zoning map.

Location of potential contaminant sources
Figure 4. Location of potential contaminant sources.

Diagram of contaminant transport mechanisms
Figure 5. Diagram of contaminant transport mechanisms.

Concentration ranges of PAH at sampling points and intertidal sampling points
Figure 6. Concentration ranges of PAH at sampling points and intertidal sampling points.

Location of background stations
Figure 7. Location of background stations.



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. #