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

PUBLIC HEALTH ASSESSMENT

NORFOLK NAVAL BASE
(a/k/a SEWELLS POINT NAVAL COMPLEX)
NORFOLK, NORFOLK CITY COUNTY, VIRGINIA


CONCLUSIONS

On the basis of its evaluation of available information, ATSDR has reached the following conclusions:

1. The city of Norfolk provides drinking water to most of Norfolk and regularly samples the water itdistributes. The only known private wells near the base drawing from the shallow aquifer do notprovide drinking water and are not expected to be affected by contamination originating from NSN.The low levels of contaminants detected in a few shallow wells used for nonpotable purposes,including use in watering backyard vegetable gardens, would be unlikely to result in adverse healtheffects. Thus, shallow groundwater poses no public health hazard. There are no known off-sitedrinking water wells drawing water from the deep aquifer downgradient of site-relatedcontamination, so deep groundwater poses no public health hazard.

2. NSN receives its drinking water from the city of Norfolk. Both the city and the Navy takemeasures to reduce the potential for exposure to metals that might leach into water from pipes. Inaddition, the Navy has sampled for lead and copper at a number of on-base fountains and faucets. Inmost locations, detected levels of the two metals were below screening values or, in a few cases,above screening values but below levels that would be expected to result in adverse health effectsunder expected exposure scenarios. However, samples from one NSN faucet in a work area (at Z-103) have shown a pattern of elevated levels of lead. Because the faucet is not a drinking fountain itis unlikely that it is commonly used for drinking water. Under infrequent exposure scenarios, thedetected levels of lead would not be expected to cause adverse health effects. Thus, exposure tometals leaching into on-base water from pipes poses no apparent public health hazard.

3. Available indoor air samples collected in 1992 near the Camp Allen Landfill to assess thepotential for exposures to VOCs migrating via groundwater did not contain levels of contaminantsof potential health concern. For this reason, the potential for VOC migration from Camp AllenLandfill is considered no apparent public health hazard.

4. Hard clams, blue crabs, and fish are recreationally and commercially harvested from WilloughbyBay, but oyster consumption is thought to be infrequent, if it occurs at all, as the oyster population inthe bay is very limited. ATSDR reviewed available fish and shellfish tissue samples, which werelimited for some contaminants.

The small number of samples that reflect past contaminant concentrations is not sufficient toprovide for a definitive evaluation of past exposure. Some samples from Willoughby Bay (mostlysamples collected more than 15 years ago, but also a 2001 oyster sample) contained zinc at levelsthat could result in the possible occurrence of minor, temporary and reversible gastrointestinaldistress, particularly in the event of exposure to oysters. However, any exposure to zinc would not beexpected to cause any lasting adverse health effects. On the basis of available samples reflectingcurrent contaminant concentrations and expected consumption patterns, no adverse health effectswould be expected from exposure to other contaminants. Thus, ATSDR concludes that current orfuture consumption of marine biota from Willoughby Bay poses no apparent public health hazard and past exposure posed an indeterminate public health hazard.


PUBLIC HEALTH ACTION PLAN

The Public Health Action Plan (PHAP) for NSN contains a description of actions taken, planned,and recommended to be taken by ATSDR, the Navy, VDOH, VDEQ, and EPA subsequent to thecompletion of this public health assessment. The purpose of the PHAP is to ensure that this publichealth assessment not only identifies potential and ongoing public health hazards, but also to providea plan of action designed to mitigate and prevent adverse human health effects resulting fromexposure to hazardous substances in the environment. The public health actions that are completed,ongoing or planned, and recommended are listed below.

Completed Actions:

  1. The Navy identified possible sources of contamination during numerous investigations.

  2. Because the Glenwood Park residential area is located adjacent to the Camp Allen Landfilland residents use private wells for nonpotable purposes, the Navy sampled 57 wells in theneighborhood, revealing several isolated cases of low-level VOC contamination.

  3. In 1990 and 1991, the Virginia Department of Health's Office of Epidemiology reviewedarea cancer incidence data and cancer data submitted by the citizens of Glenwood Park,which did not reveal any evidence of elevated cancer morbidity (i.e., cancer cases) or cancer mortality in the Glenwood Park community.

  4. In response to an ATSDR recommendation, the Navy repaired the fence around the CampAllen Salvage Yard in October 1998.

  5. The Navy conducted corrective or remedial actions at Sites 3, 4, 11, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, and22, as well as SSA 2, in the 1980s and at Sites 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 11, 19, 21, and 22, as well as SSA 3 and AOC 1, in the 1990s.

  6. An RI and feasibility study (FS) have been completed for Sites 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, and 20, and anRI and risk assessment report was completed for Site 22. Decision documents have beenfinalized for Sites 1 and 6, and a ROD has been drafted for Site 2.

  7. The Navy fully investigated contamination at 12 IRP sites and 4 AOCs, remediated them asappropriate, and does not plan to take any further action at the sites (Sites 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11,12, 13, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 21, as well as AOCs 1, 3, 7, and 8). The Navy also plans not totake any further action at Sites 14 and 15, referring them to its underground storage tank(UST) program.

  8. EPA and VDEQ have analyzed surface water, sediment, fish, and shellfish samples fromWilloughby Bay. In summer 2002, VDEQ released the results of a summer 2001 samplingevent during which it collected samples of sediment and biota from Willoughby Bay andanalyzed them for organics and metals.

  9. The Navy conducts lead and asbestos abatement programs at NSN and provides informationto residents about the potential hazards caused by any Navy-owned residences affected bylead-based paint.

Ongoing or Planned Actions

  1. The Navy operates groundwater treatment systems at Sites 1, 3, and 20 and conducts long-term monitoring at these sites, as well as at Sites 2 and 6.

  2. Investigations at SSAs 1, 2, and 4, as well as AOCs 2, 4, 5, and 6, are under way.

  3. A Proposed Remedial Action Plan is being developed for Site 22.

  4. Closeout Reports are being drafted for SSA 3 (to be closed under the UST program) and Site 5.

  5. The Virginia Department of Health's Department of Shellfish Sanitation collects a sample of10 oysters from Willoughby Bay biannually and analyzes it for six metals.

  6. The Virginia Department of Environmental Quality will continue to monitor contaminant levels in marine biota in Willoughby Bay.

Recommended Actions

  1. ATSDR recommends that the Navy verify that the faucet sampled at Z-103 is not commonlyused for drinking water. If the Navy determines that the faucet is used for drinking water, itshould be resampled. If levels of lead exceed CVs, the Navy should take appropriatemeasures to ensure that people are not exposed to these levels of contaminants.

  2. If any future groundwater monitoring data indicate that substantial groundwatercontamination is migrating beneath any areas where people live, work, or go to school,ATSDR recommends the Navy evaluate the appropriateness of collecting additional indoorair samples.

  3. ATSDR concurs with a Chesapeake Bay Program recommendation for further study ofcontamination in Willoughby Bay.

REFERENCES

Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay. 1995. James River Fact Sheet. http://www.acb-online.org/james.cfm. 1995.

Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay. n.d. Elizabeth River Fact Sheet. http://www.acb-online.org/eliz.cfm. Undated.

Army Corps of Engineers. 1998. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Norfolk Creates Shoreside Refuge. Engineer Update 22:1. http://www.hq.usace.army.mil/cepa/pubs/jan98/story5.htm . January 1998.

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 1994a. Toxicological Profile for Hexachlorobutadiene. May 1994.

ATSDR. 1994b. Toxicological Profile for Zinc (Update). May 1994.

ATSDR. 1997. Toxicological Profile for Benzene (Update). September 1997.

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Division of Health Assessment andConsultation (ATSDR-DHAC). 1998a. Naval Base Norfolk Site Summary. August 1998.

ATSDR-DHAC. 1998b. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Division of HealthAssessment and Consultation. Health Consultation/Site Summary: USN Norfolk Naval Base--Camp Allen (a/k/a Norfolk Naval Base [Sewells Point Naval Complex]). October 29, 1998.

Baker Environmental, Inc. (Baker). 1993. Final Community Relations Plan, Naval Base Norfolk,Norfolk, Virginia. Prepared for Atlantic Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Norfolk,Virginia. May 27, 1993.

Baker. 1994a. Final Preliminary Assessment/Site Inspection Report, Camp Allen Salvage Yard,Naval Base Norfolk, Norfolk, Virginia. Prepared for Atlantic Division, Naval Facilities EngineeringCommand, Norfolk, Virginia. May 27, 1994.

Baker. 1994b. Final Remedial Investigation Report, Camp Allen Landfill, Norfolk Naval Base,Norfolk, Virginia. Prepared for Atlantic Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Norfolk,Virginia. July 14, 1994.

Baker. 1994c. Final Feasibility Study, Camp Allen Landfill, Norfolk Naval Base, Norfolk,Virginia. Prepared for Atlantic Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Norfolk, Virginia.November 17, 1994.

Baker. 1994d. Final Executive Summary, Remedial Investigation, Baseline Risk Assessment, andFeasibility Study, Camp Allen Landfill, Norfolk Naval Base, Norfolk, Virginia. Prepared forAtlantic Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Norfolk, Virginia. November 17, 1994.

Baker. 1995a. Baseline Risk Assessment, Camp Allen Landfill, Norfolk Naval Base, Norfolk,Virginia, Revised Final. Prepared for Atlantic Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command,Norfolk, Virginia. February 1995.

Baker. 1995b. Final Remedial Investigation, CD Landfill, Naval Base, Norfolk, Norfolk, Virginia.Prepared for Atlantic Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Norfolk, Virginia.December 21, 1995.

Baker. 1996a. Final Relative Risk Ranking System Data Collection Sampling and Analysis Report,Naval Base, Norfolk, Virginia. January 9, 1996.

Baker. 1996b. Final Remedial Investigation Report and Baseline Risk Assessment, Building LP-20Site, Naval Base, Norfolk, Virginia. September 13, 1996.

Baker. 1996c. Draft Relative Risk Ranking System Data Collection Sampling and Analysis Report,Phase II, Naval Base, Norfolk, Virginia. December 9, 1996.

Barron, A. 2001a. Personal communication with Alex Barron, Virginia Department ofEnvironmental Quality, Water Quality Standards, Fish Tissue Monitoring Program. January 10,2001.

Barron, A. 2001b. Personal communication with Alex Barron, Virginia Department ofEnvironmental Quality, Water Quality Standards, Fish Tissue Monitoring Program. May 17, 2001.

Barron, A. 2001c. Written communication from Alex Barron, Virginia Department ofEnvironmental Quality, Water Quality Standards, Fish Tissue Monitoring Program. September 7,2001.

Boon, J. 2001. Personal communication with Dr. John Boon, Physical Oceanographer, VirginiaInstitute of Marine Science. January 3, 2001.

Bridges, W. 2000. Personal communication with Wendy Bridges, Industrial Hygienist,Environmental Programs Directorate, Naval Environmental Health Center. December 8, 2000.

Bridges, W. 2001. Written communcation from Wendy Bridges, Industrial Hygienist, Environmental Programs Directorate, Naval Environmental Health Center. September 7, 2001.

CH2MHILL. 1997a. Final Site Management Plan: Naval Base, Norfolk; Norfolk, Virginia. March1997.

CH2MHILL. 1997b. Remedial Investigation of the NM Slag Pile, Naval Base, Norfolk, Virginia,Draft. September 1997.

CH2MHILL. 1998a. Final Feasibility Study, NM Slag Pile, Naval Base, Norfolk; Norfolk,Virginia. September 1998.

CH2MHILL. 1998b. Long-Term Monitoring Plans for Four Sites at Naval Base Norfolk: RevisedDraft Long-Term Monitoring Plan for Camp Allen Landfill. September 1998.

CH2MHILL. 1999a. Draft Final 1999-2000 Site Management Plan, Naval Base, Norfolk;Norfolk, Virginia. January 1999.

CH2MHILL. 1999b. Technical Memorandum Number One, Long-Term Monitoring Plans for FourSites at Naval Base Norfolk, Norfolk, Virginia. May 11, 1999.

CH2MHILL. 2000a. Draft Final Record of Decision, NM Slag Pile, Naval Station Norfolk,.Norfolk, Virginia. January 2000.

CH2MHILL. 2000b. Revised Draft Solid Waste Management Unit (SWMU) Close-Out Reports:SWMUs 2, 3, 40, 41, and 42, Naval Station Norfolk, Norfolk, Virginia. February 2000.

CH2MHILL. 2000c. Revised Draft Solid Waste Management Unit (SWMU) Streamlined RiskAssessments: SWMUs 28, 32, 33, 34, and 35, Naval Station Norfolk, Norfolk, Virginia. February2000.

CH2MHILL. 2000d. Draft Final 2000-2001 Site Management Plan, Naval Station Norfolk,Norfolk, Virginia. July 2000.

CH2MHILL. 2000e. Final Annual Long-Term Monitoring Report for Three Sites, Naval StationNorfolk, Norfolk, Virginia. October 2000.

CH2MHILL. 2001a. Final First Year Post-Closure Monitoring Report for the CD Landfill, NavalStation Norfolk, Norfolk, Virginia. February 2001.

CH2MHILL. 2001b. Final Technical Memorandum Number Two, Long-Term Monitoring of FourSites, March 2001-April 2001, Naval Station Norfolk, Norfolk, Virginia. November 2001.

CH2MHILL. 2001c. Close-Out Report For Installation Restoration (IR) Sites: Site 7--InertChemical Landfill, Site 8--Asbestos Landfill, Site 12--Mercury Disposal Site, and Site17--Building SDA 215, Naval Station Norfolk, Norfolk, Virginia. March 2001.

City of Norfolk. 2001. City of Norfolk, Division of Water Quality. Current Water Quality Reports.http://www.city.norfolk.va.us/utilities/quality/index.html . Last updated April 25, 2001.

CLEAN. 1999. Comprehensive Long-Term Environmental Action Navy. Final RemedialInvestigation/Risk Assessment Report for Camp Allen Salvage Yard, Naval Station Norfolk,Norfolk, Virginia. November 9, 1999.

Din, W. 2000a. Personal communication with Wilkie Din, Environmental Engineer, Navy PublicWorks Center. December 7, 2000.

EDAW. 1995. EDAW, Inc.; Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc; and Shriver & HollandAssociates. Naval Base Norfolk: 2010 Land Use Plan. Prepared for Atlantic Division, NavalFacilities Engineering Command, Norfolk, Virginia. August 1995.

Elizabeth River Project. 1996. Elizabeth River Restoration: A Watershed Action Plan to Restore theElizabeth River, Leadership Review Draft. April 26, 1996.

Environmental Science & Engineering, Inc. 1994. Final Remedial Investigation Report, Q AreaDrum Storage Yard, Norfolk Naval Base, Norfolk, Virginia. April 1994.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1992. Secondary Drinking Water Regulations:Guidance for Nuisance Chemicals. EPA 810/K-92-001.http://www.epa.gov/safewater/consumer/2ndstandards.html . July 1992.

EPA. 1998. Drinking Water and Health: Contaminant Specific Fact Sheets for Consumers.http://www.epa.gov/OGWDW/dwh/c-voc.html . Fact sheets on Tetrachloroethylene and 1,2-Dichloroethane revised in 1998.

EPA. 1999. General Site Information: Norfolk Naval Base.http://www.epa.gov/reg3hwmd/super/VA/norfolk-usn-base/index.htm . Last updated April 1999.

EPA Chesapeake Bay Program. 1998. Ambient Toxicity Testing in Chesapeake Bay: Year 5Report. EPA 903/R/98/008. February 1998.

EPA Chesapeake Bay Program. 1999. Targeting Toxics: A Characterization Report. A Tool forDirecting Management and Monitoring Actions in the Chesapeake Bay's Tidal Rivers. June 1999. http://www.chesapeakebay.net/pubs/792.pdf and http://www.chesapeakebay.net/info/toxdata.html .

FFA. 1999. Federal Facilities Agreement between EPA Region III and the U.S. Department of theNavy. Admin. Docket No. III-FCA-CERC-015. February 18, 1999.

Graves, J. 2001. Personal communication with Jeffrey Graves, Norfolk Department of PublicHealth. April 27, 2001.

Groundwater Technology Government Systems. 1994. Report of Findings and Recommendations,Light Non-aqueous Phase Liquid Plume Delineation Recovery Well Placement, Piers 2-12 and 20-25, Naval Base, Norfolk, Virginia. October 20, 1994.

Heaney, S. 1999. Letter from Sean S. Heaney, Director, UST/Wastewater Division, Naval BaseNorfolk, to Brian Kaplan, ATSDR, concerning attached lead analysis results from samplingdrinking fountains within base hangars. January 14, 1999.

Johnson, W. 2000. Personal communication with Winoma Johnson, Atlantic Division, NavalFacilities Engineering Command. December 14, 2000.

Johnson, W. 2001. Written communication from Winoma Johnson, Atlantic Division, NavalFacilities Engineering Command. September 7, 2001.

Johnson, W. 2002. Written communication from Winoma Johnson, Atlantic Division, NavalFacilities Engineering Command. January 24, 2002.

Kearney. 1990. A.T. Kearney, Inc. Phase I Preliminary Review of the Norfolk Naval Base, Norfolk,Virginia. July 1990.

Land, V. 2000. Personal communication with Vernon Land, Chief, Division of Water Quality,Department of Utilities, City of Norfolk. December 19, 2000.

LANTDIV. 2000. Atlantic Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command. Naval StationNorfolk: IR Site Tour, 4/14/00. April 14, 2000.

LeBleu, W.M. 1996. Fishing on the River James. Virginia Sportsman 1(1). Formerly available from http://www.announce.com/vanet/vasport6.htm. September 1996.

MAIA. 1997. EPA: Mid-Atlantic Integrated Assessment (MAIA). MAIA Estuaries 1997-98 Data.Samples from Willoughby Bay from August 25, 1997.http://www.epa.gov/emap/maia/html/data/estuary/9798/ . Last updated 01/04/01.

Malcolm Pirnie. 1998. Installation Restoration Program Remedial Investigation--Interim Report,Naval Base, Norfolk, Virginia. March 1998.

MEDLINEplus. 2001. MEDLINEplus Health Information: A Service of the National Library ofMedicine. Medical Encyclopedia: Cortisol Level.http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/003693.htm . Last Updated 3 October 2001.

Naval Base, Norfolk. n.d. The Navy in Hampton Roads: A Statistical Report for Fiscal Year 1997(1 October-30 September). Undated.

Naval Base Norfolk Environmental Department. 1998. Commonwealth of Virginia, Title VOperating Permit Application for Naval Base, Norfolk, Norfolk, Virginia. Prepared by Commander,Naval Base Norfolk Environmental Department, Navy Facilities Engineering Atlantic DivisionCommand, and Roy F. Weston, Inc. May 1998.

Naval Station Norfolk. 2000. Site Visit conducted by ATSDR. May 8 to 10, 2000.

Naval Station Norfolk. n.d.a. History of Naval Station Norfolk.http://www.navstanorva.navy.mil . Undated.

Naval Station Norfolk. n.d.b. Lead and Copper Sampling for Norfolk Naval Base, Rounds 1-11(1992-1998). Undated.

Navy Public Works Center. 2000. Lead and Copper Sampling Results for Norfolk Naval Base,Rounds 12 (Jul-Dec 1998) and 14 (Jun-Dec 2000). Transmitted by facsimile by Wilkie Din,Environmental Engineer, Navy Public Works Center. December 7, 2000.

Newton, V. 2001. Personal communication with Virginia Newton, Virginia Department ofEnvironmental Quality, Remediation Section. January 10, 2001.

NOAA. 1997. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Waste Site Reviews-- Virginia:USN Norfolk Naval Base (Reviewed 1997); CERCLIS No. VA6170061463 . 1997.

Norfolk City Code. 1995. Code of the City of Norfolk, Virginia. Chapter 46.1-5. AdoptedSeptember 8, 1992, and amended July 25, 1995.

Norfolk Naval Sailing Center. 2000. Norfolk Naval Sailing Center: Boating Area.http://www.people.virginia.edu/~cwk6r/rentalarea.htm. March 2000.

Office of the Chief of Naval Operations. 1994. Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, Departmentof the Navy. Environmental and Natural Resources Program Manual. November 1, 1994.

Olesen, M. 2000. Written communications from Commander Mark C. Olesen, Director, Health,Safety, and Environmental Services Directorate, Naval Medical Center Portsmouth. June 16 andDecember 19, 2000.

O'Reilly, R. 2000. Personal communication with Robert O'Reilly, Fisheries Management Division,Virginia Marine Resources Commission. December 18, 2000.

Rosenthal, D. 2001. Personal communication with David Rosenthal, Reservoir Manager, City ofNorfolk. April 26, 2001.

Sparks, B. and P. Rakowski. n.d. Navy Polychlorinated Biphenyl Fire/Explosion Incidents. BarbaraSparks, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, and Paul Rakowski, Atlantic Division, NavalFacilities Engineering Command. Undated.

Stöppler, M. C., M.D. n.d. Cortisol: The "Stress Hormone."http://stress.about.com/library/weekly/aa012901a.htm . Undated.

STORET. 2001. EPA Storage and Retrieval (STORET) database. Query for Willoughby Bay datacollected by VDEQ performed by Roger E. Stewart, Virginia Department of Environmental Quality,Office of Water Quality Assessment and Planning, January 11, 2001.

STORET LDC. 2001. EPA Storage and Retrieval (STORET) database, Legacy Data Center. Queryfor Willoughby Bay samples based on latitude and longitude. April 13, 2001.

Swihart, G. 2000. Personal communication with Gary Swihart, Project Leader, Office of FisheryAssistance, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. December 7, 2000.

Versar, Inc. 1990. Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study Report for Buildings V-60 and V-90,Naval Aviation Depot, Norfolk, Virginia, Final. January 23, 1990.

Versar, Inc. 1991. Site Risk and Remediation Assessment Report for the Naval Piers 1-25, NorfolkNaval Base, Norfolk, Virginia. June 19, 1991.

Versar, Inc. 1993. Corrective Action Plan: Piers 2 through 12 and 20 through 22, Norfolk NavalBase, Norfolk, Virginia. February 4, 1993.

Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, Chesapeake Bay Program (VDEQ-CBP). 1981.Analytical data for April 25, 1981, sediment sample from Willoughby Bay. Provided by MarkRichards. April 3, 2001.

VDEQ-CBP. 1987. Analytical data for July 17, 1986, and July 22, 1987, hard clam and oystersamples from Sewells Point Naval Complex sampling stations in Willoughby Bay. Provided byMark Richards. April 17, 2001.

Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, Remediation Section (VDEQ-RS). 2000. Locationsof registered wells within approximately 1 mile of Naval Station Norfolk. Provided by VirginiaNewton. December 18, 2000.

VDEQ-RS. 2001. Water well completion reports for certain registered wells within approximately 1mile of Naval Station Norfolk. Provided by Virginia Newton. April 26, 2001.

Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, Water Division General (VDEQ-WDG). 1987.Water Division General, 1985- . July 22, 1987, sediment samples reported in the Chesapeake BayProgram's "Targeting Toxics" report (EPA Chesapeake Bay Program 1999).http://www.chesapeakebay.net/info/toxdata.html .

Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, Water Quality Standards (VDEQ-WQS). 1998.Analytical data from June 1998 samples (sediment, spot, and blue crab) from Willoughby Bay.Provided by facsimile by Alex Barron. January 10, 2001.

Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, Water Quality Standards (VDEQ-WQS). 2001.Analytical data from July and August 2001 samples (hard shell clam, oyster, blue crab, spot, andcroaker) from Willoughby Bay. Provided by Alex Barron. June 20, 2002.

Virginia Department of Health. 1997. Notice and Description of Shellfish Area CondemnationNumber 7, Hampton Roads. May 1, 1997.

Virginia Department of Health, Division of Health Hazards Control (VDOH-DHHC). 1988.Fishing Restrictions and Health Advisories in Effect for Virginia Rivers. Effective July 1, 1988.http://www.VDH.state.va.us/HHControl/fishing_advisories.htm.

Virginia Department of Health, Division of Shellfish Sanitation (VDOH-DSS). 2000. MetalsMonitoring of Oysters, 1974-2000.

Virginia Department of Heath, Office of Water Programs (VDOH-OWP). 2000. Letter from ErnestG. Johnson, Jr., Assistance District Engineer, to Sean S. Heaney, Director, Technical SupportDivision, Regional Environmental Group, Navy Public Works Center, with attached results ofSeptember 1999 Lead and Copper Sampling (Round 13).

Virginia Marine Resources Commission (VMRC). n.d. Fisheries Management Division.http://www.state.va.us/mrc/page1f.htm. Undated.

VMRC. 2000. Regulation 4VAC 20-310-10 et seq., Pertaining to the Relaying of Shellfish.Effective May 15, 2000.

VMRC. 2001. Willoughby Bay Harvest Data (1973-1999). Provided by Stephanie Iverson, DataSupervisor, Fisheries Management Division. January 10, 2001.

Woolard, C.D. 1990. Memorandum from C. Diane Woolard, M.P.H., Senior Epidemiologist,Virginia Department of Health to Valerie Stallings, M.D., M.P.H., Director, Norfolk City HealthDistrict, attaching assessment of cancer in various sections of Norfolk. September 14, 1990.

Woolard, C.D. 1991. Memorandum from C. Diane Woolard, M.P.H., Senior Epidemiologist,Virginia Department of Health to Valerie Stallings, M.D., M.P.H., Director, Norfolk City Health District, re: Cancer in Glenwood Park. July 15, 1991.


TABLES

Table 1.

Summary of Naval Station Norfolk Site Screening Areas and Areas of Concern
Designation under FFA Name Original Designation
SSA 1 Q-72 Sandblast Area SWMU 4
SSA 2 V-28 Waste Pit SWMU 6
SSA 3 Fire-fighting School SWMU 8
SSA 4 NM-37 Area SWMUs 12 and 16
AOC 1 Building Z-309 SWMUs 2 and 3
AOC 2 Marine Air Cargo Area SWMUs 9 and 10
AOC 3 CEP Area SWMUs 28, 32, 33, 34, 35, and 42
AOC 4 Q-50 PWC Accumulation Area SWMU 14
AOC 5 CD Area Behind Compost Yard SWMU 38
AOC 6 Open Dump and Disposal Area at Boundary of Camp Allen Landfill SWMU 39
AOC 7 MCA-603 Pits SWMU 40
AOC 8 Disposal Area, CA-99 Golf Course SWMU 41

Source: CH2MHILL 2000d

Abbreviations:

AOC area of concern
FFA federal facilities agreement
SSA site screening area
SWMU solid waste management unit


Table 2.

Evaluation of Potential Exposure Pathways
Pathway Name Exposure Pathway Elements Time of Exposure Comments
Source of Contamination Environmental Medium Point of Exposure Route of Exposure Exposed Population
On-site drinking water Operations and waste management practices at NSN Groundwater NSN taps Ingestion
Inhalation
Dermal contact
NSN employees, residents, and visitors Past
Current
Future
Past/Current/Future: Drinking water is provided by the city of Norfolk, which does not draw water from sources in the vicinity of NSN. The water is treated and sampled regularly. Samples from one faucet at NSN have shown a pattern of elevated levels of lead. Infrequent exposures to the detected concentrations would not be expected to result in adverse health effects. Thus, this exposure pathway poses no apparent public health hazard. As a precautionary measure, ATSDR recommends the Navy verify whether this tap is commonly used for drinking water and, if it is, resample it. If contaminant levels continue to exceed CVs, ATSDR recommends that measures be taken to ensure people are not exposed to these levels of contaminants.
Off-site drinking water Operations and waste management practices at NSN Groundwater Private drinking water wells Ingestion
Inhalation
Dermal contact
Any off-site water users served by water lines that intersect groundwater contamination Past
Current
Future
Past/Current/Future: The city of Norfolk requires that buildings in Norfolk use public water for drinking water if it is available. Most or all nearby locations are served by public water. The only identified wells drawing from shallow groundwater near the site are in Glenwood Park and are not used for drinking water. The low levels of VOCs detected in a few of these wells are not expected to result in adverse health effects. Thus, shallow groundwater poses no public health hazard. There are no known drinking water wells drawing from the deep aquifer downgradient of site-related groundwater contamination. Therefore, deep groundwater poses no public health hazard.
Air Volatilization of VOCs from groundwater and past sources of air emissions Air Locations above groundwater contamination or downwind of past sources of air emissions Inhalation NSN and nearby residents and visitors, NSN employees Past
Current
Future
Past: 1992 indoor air samples collected near the Camp Allen Landfill did not contain levels of VOCs of potential health concern.
Current/Future: NSN has applied for an operating permit for on-site sources of emissions pursuant to the Clean Air Act. Emissions limits are expected to be set at levels protective of public health. If future sampling data indicate that substantial groundwater contamination is migrating underneath areas where people live, work, or go to school, ATSDR recommends the Navy evaluate the appropriateness of collecting additional indoor air samples. Because insufficient data are available to quantify current and future exposures to air contaminants, ATSDR cannot evaluate their potential public health implications.
Soil Operations and waste management practices at NSN Soil Soil on site and near the site potentially affected by site-related contamination (e.g., near the Camp Allen Elementary School) Ingestion
Dermal contact
NSN residents and trespassers, children at the Camp Allen Elementary School Past
Current
Future
Past/Current/Future: There is no public access to NSN. In a few areas, off-site soil might have been impacted by site-related contamination through deposition of airborne contaminants or transport of contaminated soil (e.g., use of soil from disposal areas for fill). Public exposures to off-site soil and base resident or trespasser exposures to on-site soil would be incidental and of short duration. As contaminant levels in soil to which people might be exposed are too low to cause adverse health effects under limited exposure scenarios, soil poses no apparent public health hazard.
Surface water and sediment Operations and waste management practices at NSN, as well as off-site sources Surface water and sediment Surface water on site or near the site potentially affected by site-related contamination Ingestion
Dermal contact
NSN residents and trespassers, recreational users of off-site surface water Past
Current
Future
Past/Current/Future: Public access to the base is not allowed. Drainage ditches that extend off site are not large enough for swimming. Thus, any public exposures to off-site surface water and sediment potentially affected by site-related contamination, as well as any exposures to base residents or trespassers to on-site surface water and sediment, would be expected to be incidental and infrequent. Limited exposures to the detected levels of contaminants would not be expected to result in adverse health effects. Thus, surface water and sediment pose no apparent public health hazard.
Fish and shellfish from Willoughby Bay Operations and waste management practices at NSN, as well as off-site sources Biota Willoughby Bay Ingestion Consumers of fish and shellfish harvested from Willoughby Bay Past
Current
Future
Past: On the basis of available data reflecting concentrations of contaminants present in fish and shellfish, available information about fish and shellfish consumption patterns, and toxicological literature about the potential for health effects from exposure to the detected contaminants, consumption of fish and shellfish from Willoughby Bay is not expected to result in any adverse health effects, except possibly short-term effects--temporary gastrointestinal distress or decreases in levels of serum cortisol (a hormone produced in response to stress)--from acute exposures to elevated zinc levels.Thus, past consumption of marine biota from Willoughby Bay posed an indeterminate public health hazard.
Current/Future: On the basis of available data describing recent contaminant levels and current consumption patterns, current and future consumption of marine biota from Willoughby Bay pose no apparent health hazard.

Abbreviations:

ATSDR = Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry;
CV = comparison value
NSN = Naval Station Norfolk
VOC = volatile organic compound


Table 3.

Volatile Organic Compounds Detected in Shallow Groundwater at Concentrations Exceeding Comparison Values, Camp Allen Landfill Area B
Contaminant

Area B, on-site

Area B, off-site

CV (µg/L) Type of CV
Maximum detected concentration (µg/L) Location of maximum Year of maximum Maximum detected concentration (µg/L) Location of maximum Year of maximum
Acetone 8,300 GW-4 1991 210 B-MW3A 1991 1000 child RMEG
Benzene 390 GW-4 1991 1,200 B-MW3A 1991 0.6 CREG
Carbon tetrachloride <7 B-MW2A 2001 3.4 B-MW3A 2000 0.3 CREG
Chlorobenzene 1 B-MW7 1991 110 B-MW1 1991 100 LTHA
Chloroethane 16 GW-5 1991 <250 B-MW1, B-MW3A 1991 3.6 RBC-C
1,2-Dichloroethane 74 GW-4 1983 520 B-MW3A 1991 0.4 CREG
1,1-Dichloroethene 170 GW-5 1983 180 B-MW3A 1991 0.06 CREG
1,2-Dichloroethene 340 GW-4 1983 3,900 B-MW11A 1997 70 LTHA
4-Methyl-2-pentanone 2,100 GW-4 1991 250 B-MW11A 1991 140 RBC-N
Methylene chloride 24,000 GW-4 1983 170 B-MW11A 1991 5 CREG
Tetrachloroethylene 10 B-MW2A 1992 48 B-MW3A 1991 10 LTHA
Toluene 290 GW-4 1984 <120 B-MW11A 1992 200 child i-EMEG
Trichloroethylene 640 GW-4 1983 2,100 B-MW3A 1991 5 MCL
Trichlorofluoromethane 2,300 GW-4 1983 840 B-MW3A 1993 2000 LTHA
Vinyl chloride 79 GW-4 1983 5,100 B-MW11A 1999 0.03 CREG

Sources: Baker 1994b, c; CH2MHILL 1998b, 2000e, 2001b
Abbreviations: CREG = cancer risk evaluation guide; CV = comparison value; i-EMEG = environmental media evaluation guide, intermediate exposure; LTHA = lifetime health advisory; MCL = maximum contaminant level; RBC-C = risk-based concentration, carcinogenic effects; RBC-N = risk-based concentration, noncarcinogenic effects; RMEG = reference dose media evaluation guide; µg/L = micrograms/liter


Table 4.

Volatile Organic Compounds Detected in Deep Groundwater at Concentrations Exceeding Comparison Values, Camp Allen Landfill, Off-site Samples
Contaminant Maximum detected concentration (µg/L) CV (µg/L) Type of CV
Samples collected north of Area A2
Benzene 50 0.6 CREG
1,2-Dichloroethane 44 0.4 CREG
1,1-Dichloroethene 930 0.06 CREG
1,2-Dichloroethene 540 70 LTHA
Trichloroethylene 170 5 MCL
Vinyl chloride 240 0.03 CREG
Samples collected west of Area A1
Benzene 3 0.6 CREG
1,2-Dichloroethene 220 0.4 CREG
Chloromethane 99 2.1 RBC-C
Trichloroethylene 10.5 5 MCL
Vinyl chloride 260 0.03 CREG
Samples collected east of Area B
Benzene 1,100 0.6 CREG
1,1-Dichloroethene 130 0.06 CREG
1,2-Dichloroethane 900 0.4 CREG
1,2-Dichloroethene 3,900 70 LTHA
Methylene chloride 7 5 CREG
Trichloroethylene 1,900 5 MCL
Vinyl chloride 3,000 0.03 CREG

Sources: Baker 1994b, c; CH2MHILL 1998b, 2000e, 2001b

Notes:
Methylene chloride is considered a possible laboratory contaminant.

Abbreviations:
CREG = cancer risk evaluation guide
CV = comparison value
LTHA = lifetime health advisory
MCL = maximum contaminant level
RBC-C = risk-based concentration, carcinogenic effects
µg/L = micrograms/liter


Table 5.

Contaminants Detected in Surface Water and Sediment Samples from Willoughby Bay at Concentrations Exceeding Comparison Values
Contaminant Maximum detected concentration Unit CV Type of CV
Surface water samples
Arsenic 2 µg/L 0.02 CREG
Chromium 40 µg/L 30 child RMEG, Cr VI
Lead 40 µg/L 15 EPA Action Level
Nickel 120 µg/L 100 LTHA
Sediment samples
Benzo(a)pyrene 6.992 mg/kg 0.1 CREG
Benzo(a)anthracene 6.811 mg/kg 0.87 RBC-C
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 4.243 mg/kg 0.87 RBC-C
Polychlorinated biphenyls 2.692 mg/kg 0.4 CREG
Arsenic 26 mg/kg 0.5 CREG
Cadmium 12.7 mg/kg 10 child c-EMEG
Chromium 207 mg/kg 200 child RMEG, Cr VI
Iron 54,800 mg/kg 23,000 RBC-N

Sources: Baker 1996a, c; EPA Chesapeake Bay Program 1998; MAIA 1997; STORET 2001; VDEQ-CBP 1981; VDEQ-WDG1987; VDEQ-WQS 1998

Abbreviations:
CREG = cancer risk evaluation guide
CV = comparison value
c-EMEG = environmental media evaluation guide, chronic exposure
LTHA = lifetime health advisory
mg/kg = milligrams/kilogram
RBC-C = risk-based concentration, carcinogenic effects
RBC-N = risk-based concentration, noncarcinogenic effects
RMEG = reference dose media evaluation guide
µg/L = micrograms/liter


Table 6.

Summary of Contaminants that Exceed Risk-Based Concentrations in Fish and Shellfish Samples from Willoughby Bay
Contaminant Species Range of Detections
(mg/kg, wet weight)
Frequency of Detection Date of Maximum Detection Location of Maximum Detection RBC
(mg/kg, wet weight)
Number of Samples > RBC
Benzo(a)pyrene blue crab 0.00019 - 0.00187 2/2 6/16/98 C 0.0004 1
clam 0.00042 - 0.032* 2/2 7/16/86 A 3 1
oyster 0.00109 1/1 8/30/01 C   1
spot 0.00057 1/1 6/16/98 C   1
Benzo(a)anthracene oyster 0.01759 - 0.032* 2/2 07/22/87 A 0.0043 2
clam 0.00107 - 0.018* 2/2 7/16/86 A   1
blue crab 0.00017 - <0.01 1/2 6/16/98 C   0
croaker 0.00006 1/1 7/23/01 C   0
spot 0.00013 - 0.00014 2/2 6/16/98 C   0
Benzo(b)fluoranthene oyster 0.01473 1/1 8/30/01 C 0.0043 1
blue crab 0.00021 1/2 7/23/01 C   0
clam 0.00137 1/1 8/30/01 C   0
spot 0.00025 1/1 6/16/98 C   0
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene spot 0.00047 1/1 6/16/98 C 0.00043 1
blue crab 0.00022 1/1 6/16/98 C   0
oyster 0.00018 1/1 8/30/01 C   0
4,4'-DDD blue crab 0.0013 - 0.020 2/2 6/22/79 A 0.013 1
spot 0.00091 1/1 6/16/98 C   0
croaker 0.0015 1/1 7/23/01 C   0
4,4'-DDE blue crab 0.00191 - 0.040 18/18 08/29/78 A 0.0093 16
oyster 0.0057 - 0.017* 2/2 07/22/87 A   1
croaker 0.0049 1/1 7/23/01 C   0
clam 0.0013 1/1 8/30/01 C   0
spot 0.00214 - 0.0082 2/2 7/23/01 C   0
4,4'-DDT blue crab 0.007 - 0.010 1/1 4/24/79 A 0.0093 1
croaker 0.0003 1/1 7/23/01 C   0
oyster 0.0002 1/1 8/30/01 C   0
clam 0.0001 1/1 8/30/01 C   0
Heptachlor epoxide blue crab 0.00059 1/1 7/23/01 C 0.00035 1
clam 0.00004 1/1 8/30/01 C   0
oyster 0.00013 1/1 8/30/01 C   0
spot 0.00025 1/1 7/23/01 C   0
PCBs oyster 0.004 - 0.062* 25/25 07/22/87 A 0.0016 25
clam 0.002 - 0.01243 4/4 7/23/01 C   4
blue crab 0.0146 - 0.01697 2/2 7/23/01 C   2
spot 0.0121 - 0.05798 2/2 7/23/01 C   2
croaker 0.03690 1/1 7/23/01 C   1
Arsenic oyster <0.5 - 3.0 30/32 10/28/94 B 0.0021 30
clam <0.5 - 2.5 1/2 7/16/86 A   1
blue crab <0.5 - 1.1 1/2 6/16/98 C   1
croaker <0.5 0/1 7/23/01 C   0
spot <0.5 0/2 6/16/98 C   0
Cadmium oyster <0.1 - 6.06 43/62 3/3/73 A 1.4 22
spot <0.01 - 0.019 1/2 6/16/98 C    1
clam <0.01 - <0.2 0/2 7/16/86 A   0
blue crab <0.01 0/2 6/16/98 C   0
croaker <0.01 0/1 7/23/01 C   0
Chromium oyster <0.05 - 74 10/32 4/21/88 B 4.1 Cr VI 2
spot <0.05 - 5.05 2/4 7/29/71 A 2000 Cr III 1
blue crab <0.05 - 3.33 1/3 7/29/71 A   0
clam <0.05 - <0.2 0/2 7/16/86 A   0
croaker <0.05 0/1 7/23/01 C   0
Lead blue crab <0.1 - 6.19 1/3 7/29/71 A Not Available N/A
clam 0.13 1/1 8/30/01 C   N/A
croaker <0.1 0/1 7/23/01 C   N/A
spot <0.1 - 2.52 2/4 7/29/71 A   N/A
oyster 0.10 - 2 10/32 10/30/90, 4/16/93 B   N/A
Mercury blue crab <0.01 - 0.49 2/3 7/29/71 A 0.14 1
croaker <0.01 0/1 7/23/01 C   0
oyster <0.01 0/1 8/30/01 C   0
spot <0.01 - 0.034 1/2 6/16/98 C   0
clam <0.01 - <0.02 0/2 7/16/86 A   0
Thallium clam <0.3 - 2 1/2 7/16/86 A 0.11 1
blue crab <0.3 0/1 7/23/01 C   0
croaker <0.3 0/1 7/23/01 C   0
oyster <0.3 0/1 8/30/01 C   0
spot <0.3 0/1 7/23/01 C   0
Zinc oyster 208 - 1,440 62/62 10/28/94 B 410 58
spot 5.1 - 124 3/3 7/29/71 A   0
blue crab 22 - 64.8 2/2 7/29/71 A   0
clam 8.4 - 38 2/2 7/16/86 A   0
croaker 4.7 1/1 7/23/01 C   0

Sources: EPA Chesapeake Bay Program 1999; STORET LDC 2001; VDEQ-CBP 1987; VDEQ-WQS 1998, 2001; VDOH-DSS2000

Notes: * = Reported on a dry weight basis; Location A = near the eastern end of Site 13; Location B = south of the eastern end ofWilloughby Spit; Location C = near the center of Willoughby Bay

Abbreviations: mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram; N/A = not applicable; RBC = risk-based concentration.


Table 7.

Summary of Contaminants Detected in the Vicinity of the Camp Allen Elementary School
Contaminant Maximum detected concentration Unit Location of maximum detection CV Type of CV
Soil samples
Arsenic 25.1* mg/kg about 200 feet west of the school 0.5 CREG
Cadmium 31.3 mg/kg about 75 feet west of the school 10 child c-EMEG
Chromium 869 mg/kg about 75 feet west of the school 200 child RMEG, Cr VI
Drainage ditch surface water samples
Antimony 20.6 µg/L > 1,000 west of the school 4 child RMEG
Arsenic 11.5 µg/L > 1,000 west of the school 0.02 CREG
Iron 14,300 µg/L > 1,000 west of the school 11,000 RBC-N
Lead 53.6 µg/L > 1,000 west of the school 15 EPA Action Level
Manganese 574 µg/L > 1,000 west of the school 500 child RMEG
Drainage ditch sediment samples
Arsenic 23 (shallow), 6.4 (deep) mg/kg > 1,000 west of the school about 200 feet south of the school 0.5 CREG
Air samples
Benzene 0.7 µg/m3 Two classroom sampling locations, maintenance area 0.1 CREG
Hexachlorobutadiene 0.3 µg/m3 One classroom sampling location, gymnasium, maintenance area 0.05 CREG

Sources: Baker 1994a, b, c, 1995a, 1997

Notes:
* The laboratory analyses for arsenic returned concentrations of arsenic that were thought to be biased low, indicating that actual arsenic concentrations might have been higher.

Abbreviations:
CREG = cancer risk evaluation guide
CV = comparison value
c-EMEG = environmental media evaluation guide, chronic exposure
mg/kg = milligrams/kilogram
RBC-N = risk-based concentration, noncarcinogenic effects
RMEG = reference dose media evaluation guide
µg/L = micrograms/liter
µg/m3 = micrograms/cubic meter


FIGURES

Location of Naval Station Norfolk
Figure 1. Location of Naval Station Norfolk

Installation Restoration Program Sites at Naval Station Norfolk
Figure 2. Installation Restoration Program Sites at Naval Station Norfolk

Solid Waste Management Units at Naval Station Norfolk
Figure 3. Solid Waste Management Units at Naval Station Norfolk

ATSDR's Exposure Evaluation Process
Figure 4. ATSDR's Exposure Evaluation Process

Camp Allen Landfill and Vicinity
Figure 5. Camp Allen Landfill and Vicinity

Camp Allen Landfill Area B
Figure 6. Camp Allen Landfill Area B


Next Section     Table of Contents

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

A-Z Index

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