PUBLIC HEALTH ASSESSMENT
TOOELE ARMY DEPOT (NORTH AREA)
TOOELE, TOOELE COUNTY, UTAH
As a part of the PHA process, ATSDR gathered information about health concerns voiced by members of the community. In gathering this information, ATSDR interviewed several members of the local community, the local public health department, the state health department, and some members of the Restoration Advisory Board. In addition, ATSDR held two public availability sessions in October, 2001 to meet with individuals. The purpose of these discussions was to identify the major areas of community concern about TEAD. The majority of the concerns expressed were of a general nature regarding the quality of the environment and public health of the Tooele Valley. Some people believed that certain diseases occur at higher than expected rates. These included multiple sclerosis, birth defects, respiratory problems (predominantly asthma), Parkinson's disease, and cancer. Few residents were specifically concerned about exposures to contaminants released from TEAD. In general, these residents believe that TEAD is just one of several sources of environmental pollution in Tooele Valley.
This section consists of three separate topic areas. The first identifies some of the specific questions and health concerns presented to ATSDR by community members and the agency's responses based on information that we were able to gather to address those concerns. The second topic area provides general information, in a question/answer format, to address Tooele County residents' request for information about multiple sclerosis and its frequency of occurrence. The last topic area provides general information, in a question/answer format, to address community concerns about potential exposure from TEAD's open burn and open detonation (OB/OD) activities.
ATSDR met with representatives of the Tooele County Health Department during the site visits in January 2001 and October 2001 to obtain information on previous public health reports related to Tooele City, Grantsville, and Tooele County residents. Additional data from the Tooele County Health Department were used to update the information presented below.
Comment 1: How do the numbers of cancer cases and other diseases in Tooele County compare to those in other counties?
Response: To obtain more specific information about the health status of residents of Tooele County, ATSDR used information from Community Health Status Reports by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' Health Resources and Service Administration (HRSA). These reports provide information on a variety of public health indicators for most U.S. counties. The results for a selected county can be compared to the range of values measured for other U.S. counties of similar size, population composition, and density. ATSDR reviewed the Tooele County report published in July 2000 (Health Resources and Service Administration, 2000).
ATSDR compared selected health indicators for Tooele County with health data for all U.S. counties, using the median value for each indicator. We also looked at the range of health indicator values for peer counties--that is, counties that were most similar in size, density, and population composition to Tooele County. Table T1 shows the values of these health indicators for Tooele Country, the ranges of values that apply to 80% of the peer counties (i.e., the range of values that are not extreme), and the median values for all U.S. counties. Tooele County's values compared favorably with the median values, and with the ranges for the peer counties, for most of the indicators.
To provide additional perspective ATSDR also reviewed general indicators of health for the state of Utah. Utah had the third highest life expectancy in the nation in 1990, at 77.7 years (Governor's Office of Planning and Budget 2001). Between 1993 and 1997, the average life expectancy for Tooele County residents was 76.1 years. The range for the peer counties during this time period was 73.7 to 76.9 years and the median life expectancy for all U.S. counties was 75.4 years.
Several residents expressed concern about the incidence of cancer in Tooele City and Grantsville. ATSDR was not able to locate published reports comparing cancer incidence at the city or town level. Some information is available for the county, state, and national levels. Based on the available data collected from 1993 through 1997, the American Cancer Society estimated that the overall cancer incidence rate for both men and women in Utah was the third lowest in the nation. In this study, Utah also ranked lowest in overall cancer mortality for both men and women (American Cancer Society 2001). Based on data from 1994 through 1998, the American Cancer Society estimated that the overall cancer incidence rate for men in Utah was the fifth lowest in the nation--fourth lowest for women. This study also estimated that Utah had the lowest overall cancer mortality rate for both men and women (American Cancer Society 2002).
Historically, Utah has had the lowest overall cancer mortality rate; this has been attributed to Utah also having the lowest smoking rate of any state in national surveys (Utah Cancer Registry 1996). Cancer incidence has increased across the United States and within Utah since 1985. But this is believed to be, at least in part, due to increased screening and improvements in medical technology that lead to earlier detection. So while the age-adjusted incidence rates for the United States and Utah have increased from the early 1970s to the early 1990s, the age-adjusted mortality rates have remained essentially constant for both groups (Utah Cancer Registry 1996).
ATSDR reviewed several reports prepared by state or county public health offices. The Utah's Healthy People 2000 Health Status Indicators by Local Health District report (Bureau of Surveillance and Analysis 1998) tabulates health statistics for the 12 health districts of Utah, including Tooele County. For 1994 through 1996, Tooele County had the highest rate of lung cancer deaths among all the health districts in Utah, although the rate was still significantly lower than the U.S. average. The Utah Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, Local Health District Report, (Utah Department of Health 1999) indicated that Tooele County had the second highest percentage of residents who are current smokers, the second highest average number of cigarettes smoked per day, and the lowest percentage of people trying to quit smoking. The Tooele County Department of Health considers smoking cessation and smoking prevention education for school children to be one of their primary objectives in improving public health (Myron Bateman, personal communication, January 2001).
Little definitive information exists on incidence rates of cancer for the cities and towns that make up the majority of counties in the United States, including Tooele County. One exception is A Review of Cancer Rates in Grantsville, Utah (Utah Department of Health 1995a). According to that source, 237 cancer cases were reported for Grantsville residents between 1973 and 1993. The average age-adjusted incidence rate for Grantsville was 340.3 cancers per 100,000 people; for Utah the rate was 302.6 during the same time period. Forty different types of cancer were reported in Grantsville, and eighteen of those were reported three or more times. Five cancer types accounted for approximately 50% of the total cancers: prostate (31 cases), colorectal (29 cases), breast (25 cases), cervix (includes in situ) (18 cases), and lung/bronchial (15 cases). These five cancers were also increasing statewide during this time period. Of the eighteen different types of cancers reported three or more times in Grantsville, only two (cancer of the cervix and brain/nervous system) occurred in significantly greater than expected numbers when compared with the state's rates for the entire 1973-1993 study period.
Years of research have identified a number of factors that have been associated with cancer.
These include exposure to tobacco (use or second-hand smoke); a diet high in fat and low in
fruits, vegetables, and cereal grains; alcohol use; exposure to sunlight; and exposure to various
natural and man-made chemicals (http://www.focusoncancer.com 
). Though epidemiological
studies suggest that smoking contributes to one-third of all cancer deaths and 85% of all lung
cancer deaths in this country, it is generally not possible to isolate the cause of cancer in an
individual (http://cis.nci.nih.gov ; http://www.focusoncancer.com ). In general, the available data
suggest that cancer is no more prevalent in Tooele County than in the rest of Utah or the nation.
ATSDR also sought information on other illnesses, such as Parkinson's disease and some respiratory ailments that have been identified as community concerns by ATSDR. Currently, insufficient data exist for descriptions or comparisons of these diseases' incidences at local, state, or national levels.
Table T2 shows the mortality rates of several common causes (as tracked by HRSA) for Tooele County. This table also shows the ranges and average values for the other Utah counties that had reportable data, as well as the average value for all counties in the United States, for 1997. Table T3 shows the same information for each county in Utah.
Table T1. Comparison of Selected Public Health Indicators for Tooele County and Other U.S. Countiesa
| Public Health Indicator | Tooele County | Range Containing 80% of the Peer Counties | Median Value for All U.S. Counties (1997) |
| Low birth weight (< 2,500 grams) |
8.0% | 5.4-9.3% | 7.5% |
| Teen mothers (< 18 years old) |
6.9% | 4.0-9.4% | 12.7% |
| Infant mortalityb (deaths/1,000 live births) |
4.0 | 5.2-10.9 | 7.2 |
| Breast cancer deathsc | 26.5 | 15.2-32.1 | 28.6 |
| Colon cancer deathsc | 21.8 | 13.5-23.2 | 21.6 |
| Lung cancer deathsc | 41.4 | 24.5-62.5 | 58.1 |
| Coronary heart disease deathsc | 123.8 | 114.5-213.5 | 216.0 |
| Stroke deathsc | 49.3 | 43.8-67.3 | 62.0 |
| Motor vehicle deathsc | 35.3 | 26.5-60.3 | 15.8 |
| Suicide deathsc | 18.1 | 16.4-30.7 | 11.4 |
aData for 1993-1997 from
National Center for Health Statistics, Vital Reporting System.
bThrough 12 months age.
cDeaths per 100,000 population, rate age-adjusted to year 2000 standard.
Table T2: Comparison of Causes of Death
for Tooele and Other Counties in Utah, as Identified by the Health Resources
and Services Administration
| Breast Cancer | Colon Cancer | Lung Cancer | Heart Disease | Stroke | |
| Tooele Countya | 26.5 | 21.8 | 41.4 | 123.8 | 49.3 |
| Number of Utah counties with data | 15 | 17 | 21 | 28 | 26 |
| Range of values | 17.3-44.2 | 10.8-28.6 | 10.7-64.7 | 73.9-264.7 | 38.2-82.4 |
| Average
+/- standard deviation |
28.4
6.5 |
17.4
4.9 |
28.9
11.1 |
171.0
43.0 |
59.5
12.1 |
| National values for 1997a | 28.6 | 21.6 | 58.1 | 216.0 | 62.0 |
aValues represent age-adjusted
(Using 2000 U.S. Population as Standard) rates per 100,000 population.
From: Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA). 2000.
Table T3: Comparison of Selected Causes
of Death From the Health Resources and Services Administration Database
| County | Population | Life Expectancy (years) |
Death Rate From All
Causes (#/100,000) |
Death Rate by Selected
Causes (deaths per 100,000 population) |
|||||
| Breast Cancer | Colon Cancer | Lung Cancer | Heart Disease | Stroke | Motor Vehicle Injury | ||||
| Beaver | 5861 | 76.6 | 859.9 | 44.5 | 229.3 | 55.2 | 32.6 | ||
| Box Elder | 41102 | 77.2 | 818.6 | 17.3 | 15.3 | 21.7 | 158.5 | 80.3 | 22.9 |
| Cache | 84818 | 79.8 | 646.8 | 19.6 | 12.4 | 10.7 | 117.8 | 53.8 | 14.7 |
| Carbon | 20932 | 78.2 | 912 | 22.8 | 28.6 | 38.7 | 188 | 58.7 | 26.9 |
| Daggett | 754 | 75.2 | 665.9 | 211.6 | |||||
| Davis | 226062 | 78.8 | 793.2 | 28.8 | 15.6 | 28.3 | 156.4 | 82.4 | 13.2 |
| Duchesne | 14442 | 75.2 | 995.4 | 28.6 | 20.5 | 24.5 | 212.5 | 56.4 | 40.4 |
| Emery | 10875 | 75.4 | 855.4 | 15.7 | 29.6 | 166.2 | 53 | 33.4 | |
| Garfield | 4205 | 76.4 | 720.7 | 24.9 | 194 | 62 | 46.5 | ||
| Grand | 8118 | 75.4 | 850.6 | 44.2 | 24.9 | 64.7 | 143.6 | 49.8 | 34.6 |
| Iron | 27747 | 77.9 | 782.7 | 32.2 | 10.8 | 25.8 | 156.7 | 38.2 | 26.7 |
| Juab | 7248 | 76.6 | 838.1 | 31.4 | 18 | 27 | 193.5 | 54.9 | 24.9 |
| Kane | 5828 | 76.4 | 761.9 | 21.5 | 174.3 | 58.9 | 23.8 | ||
| Millard | 12320 | 76.6 | 859.4 | 30 | 10.9 | 20.9 | 215.3 | 62.4 | 19.1 |
| Morgan | 6905 | 78.1 | 726.7 | 191.7 | 45.1 | ||||
| Piute | 1391 | 75.4 | 902.3 | 248.1 | 82.3 | ||||
| Rich | 1816 | 79.8 | 750.1 | 102.2 | |||||
| Salt Lake | 839896 | 77.2 | 817.6 | 24.1 | 16.7 | 26.7 | 140.4 | 61.6 | 16.5 |
| San Juan | 13688 | 76.4 | 690.6 | 19.6 | 152.7 | 43.8 | 62 | ||
| Sanpete | 20893 | 76.6 | 786.7 | 34.6 | 18 | 24 | 175.4 | 51.7 | 20.4 |
| Summit | 25752 | 78.1 | 593.4 | 73.9 | 47.8 | 23.2 | |||
| Sevier | 18064 | 76.6 | 819.6 | 21.5 | 24.6 | 187.9 | 75.2 | 16.7 | |
| Tooele | 31410 | 76.1 | 900.9 | 26.5 | 21.8 | 41.4 | 123.8 | 49.3 | 35.3 |
| Uintah | 25513 | 75.2 | 925.8 | 32.1 | 12.8 | 31.7 | 170.8 | 56.5 | 39.3 |
| Wasatch | 12788 | 78.2 | 895.4 | 144 | 61 | 36.9 | |||
| Washington | 78614 | 78.7 | 716.2 | 29.3 | 14.8 | 27.4 | 128.4 | 58 | 21 |
| Wayne | 2368 | 75.4 | 865.1 | 264.7 | 77.3 | ||||
| Weber | 181596 | 76.9 | 816.1 | 25.2 | 17.3 | 25.7 | 165.4 | 72.2 | 16 |
| National Values for 1997 | 75.4 | 923.2 | 28.6 | 21.6 | 58.1 | 216.0 | 62.0 | 15.8 | |
Comment 2: How does the number of birth defects occurring in Tooele County compare to the numbers for other counties?
Response: The Utah Birth Defects Registry Report: Activities and 1995 Cases (Utah Department of Health 1997b) provided birth statistics for Utah by county. In 1995, 518 Tooele County women gave birth in Utah. Of those, there were three cases of neural tube defects, one case of oral-facial cleft, and one case of trisomy reported. For this 1-year reporting period, the incidence of neural tube defects was higher for Tooele County than the state of Utah and the rate of occurrence of both oral-facial cleft and trisomy were among the lowest in the state. Unfortunately, there is little information about the prevalence of these types of birth defects for most counties in the United States.
Comment 3: I live near Rush Valley and get my drinking water from my private well, as do my neighbors. My neighbor raises horses and says she needs to give them special medicine to ensure that they do not have miscarriages. What is in our water that could make horses miscarry and will it affect me?
Response: There is no information describing the water quality for private wells in Tooele County that we can review. We can tell that private residential wells in Rush Valley would not be affected by groundwater contaminants from TEAD. Groundwater flow in Tooele Valley generally has a northward component, and contaminated groundwater beneath TEAD would not impact Rush Valley.
ATSDR did gather some basic information about the causes of horse miscarriage and potential treatment or prevention methods. Equine herpesvirus infection 1 (EHV-1) may be a likely explanation for what is causing the high number of miscarriages. EHV-1 is also known as equine rhinopneumonitis and equine abortion virus. It is a relatively common, highly contagious virus found all over the world. Most commonly EHV-1 causes respiratory disease and abortions in adult horses. Symptoms in an adult horse can be mild and barely noticeable. If a pregnant mare becomes infected with the virus, though, it can enter the body of the foal (i.e., baby horse) and damage internal organs, especially the liver and kidneys. This typically results in the death and subsequent abortion of the foal. If the infection occurs near full term, it may result in a stillbirth or delivery of a sickly foal that does not survive long. There is no specific treatment other than attempting to relieve symptoms to make the horse comfortable. Vaccination has proven to be an effective preventive measure. It is commonly recommended that all horses be vaccinated several times a year and that pregnant mares be vaccinated at 5, 7, and 9 months of gestation.
None of the information reviewed suggested that this virus could affect humans or be spread by contaminants in the groundwater. These Web sites provide information about the effect of EHV-1 on horses:
Comment 4: I rely on my own private well for my domestic water use, including drinking water. How can I be sure my water is safe to drink?
Response: To drill a well in the county, one must have a permit from the Tooele County Health Department. The permitting process includes providing a map, drawn to scale, showing the proposed well location is over 100 feet from any pollution source. The well must be drilled and prepared by a permitted driller. After the well is completed, it is sampled for a variety of metals, inorganic chemicals, and bacterial contaminants. Sampling can also be performed for VOCs, at the well owner's request. Contact the Tooele County Health Department for more information and a schedule of fees. ATSDR recommends that private drinking water wells be resampled periodically to ensure that the water quality has not degraded over time. The resampling rates depend on a variety of factors, including the initial water quality, the number of other wells in the general area, and the land use in the vicinity of the well.
EPA is a good source of additional information. Its publication Drinking
Water From Household Wells (available at http://www.epa.gov/safewater/pwells1.html )
suggests drinking water wells be tested annually for total coliform bacteria,
nitrates, total dissolved solids, and pH levels. Other analytes can be included
if they are suspected to be a problem. The Tooele County Health Department can
help with sample collection, shipment to the laboratory, and interpretation
of results. Fees for these services vary.
Comment 5: Is the air quality in Tooele County hazardous to my health?
Response: No. Although limited monitoring data are available for the Tooele Valley, the air monitoring site is in Grantsville and monitoring results indicate that the air quality meets EPA's NAAQS standards for all of the analytes tested. The Utah DEQ, Division of Air Quality (DAQ), established an air monitoring station at 90 South Park Street in Grantsville on April 27, 1993. Air monitoring has been conducted at various times for PM10, PM2.5, SO2, Cl2, and HCl. Tables T4 and T5 compare the measured results for PM10, PM2.5, and SO2 with the applicable NAAQS. The monitoring conducted at Grantsville indicates that that portion of Tooele County meets all of the NAAQS standards except for SO2. This failure to meet the SO2 standard was believed to be due to local smelter operations.
DAQ selected the monitoring location, and the pollutant(s) to be monitored, based on emission inventory and air pollution dispersion modeling results. DAQ monitored HCl and Cl2 at the same Grantsville monitoring station to identify if Grantsville residents were exposed to hazardous levels of HCl or Cl2 released by Magnesium Corporation of America (MagCorp) operations. Those monitoring efforts are described in the Utah Department of Health's April 1997 Health Assessment MagCorp Chlorine and Hydrogen Chloride Gas Emissions, Grantsville, Utah report (Utah Department of Health 1997a). Table T6 compares the measured results for the monitoring of HCl and Cl2 to available standards. Because the air monitoring data for Tooele County are limited, ATSDR also looked at the emission inventories for both Tooele and Salt Lake Counties. Table T7 compares the 1996 emission inventories for these counties.
During the monitoring periods, the measured level only exceeded the standard once. Anecdotally, that occurrence was attributed to a nearby road repair project. These data indicate that the air quality in Grantsville is not unhealthy.
Table T4. Comparison of Airborne Particulate Matter Measured in Grantsville to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards
| Pollutant | Year | Annual Average (µg/m3) |
Highest 24-Hour
Average (µg/m3) |
Second-Highest 24-Hour
Average (µg/m3) |
NAAQS Annual
Mean (µg/m3) |
NAAQS 24-Hour
Average (µg/m3) |
Exceedences |
| PM10 | 1997 | 17 | 45 | 32 | 50 | 150 | 0 |
| 1996 | 21 | 72 | 50 | 50 | 150 | 0 | |
| 1995 | 23 | 55 | 49 | 50 | 150 | 0 | |
| 1994 | 26 | 133 | 98 | 50 | 150 | 0 | |
| 1993 | 26 | 186 | 75 | 50 | 150 | 1 | |
| PM2.5 | 2000 | 10 | 34 | 30 | 15a | 65a | 0 |
| 1999 | 9 | 74 | 58 | 15a | 65a | 0 |
aNAAQS for PM2.5 are presented for information. A 1999 federal court ruling blocks implementation of these standards.
Data available from http://www.deq.state.ut.us/EQAMC/amc.htm .
µg/m3: micrograms per cubic meter
NAAQS: National Ambient Air Quality Standards
PM10: particles less than 10 microns in diameter
PM2.5: particles less than 2.5 microns in diameter
Table T5. Comparison of Sulfur Dioxide
Air Monitoring Results From Grantsville to the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards
| Year | Highest 24-Hour
Average (ppm) |
Second-Highest 24-Hour Average (ppm) |
NAAQS 24-Hour
Average (ppm) |
Highest 3-Hour
Average (ppm) |
Second-Highest 3-Hour Average (ppm) |
NAAQS 3-Hour
Average (ppm) |
| 1997 | .002 | .002 | .14 | .004 | .004 | .50 |
| 1996 | .002 | .002 | .14 | .005 | .004 | .50 |
| 1995 | .003 | .003 | .14 | .011 | .008 | .50 |
| 1993 | .004 | .003 | .14 | .011 | .010 | .50 |
Data available from http://www.deq.state.ut.us/EQAMC/amc.htm .
NAAQS: National Ambient Air Quality Standards
ppm: parts per million
Table T6. Comparison of Hydrogen Chloride
and Chlorine Gas Air Monitoring Results From Grantsville to the Health-Based
Screening Values Identified by the Utah Department of Healtha
| Compound | Start of Monitoring | End of Monitoring | Average Value | Highest Value | Odor Threshold | Screening Valuea |
| Hydrogen chloride | April 1993 | 1995 | <.0013 parts per million | .014 parts per million | .77 parts per million | 1.0 parts per million |
| Chlorine gas | December 1996 | March 1997 | ~.003 parts per million | .022 parts per million | .31 parts per million | .5 parts per million |
aHealth-Based Screening Values were identified by the Utah Department of Health as a result of their literature survey. They are reported in Health Assessment MagCorp Chlorine and Hydrogen Chloride Gas Emissions, Grantsville, Utah (Utah Department of Health 1997a). The data in this table come from the same document.
Table T7. Comparison of Tooele and Salt
Lake Counties Emission Inventories for 1996
| Tooele County | Salt Lake County | |
| Total PM10 emissions (tons per year) | 5,740 | 34,118 |
| Total SO2 emissions (tons per year) | 277 | 4,922 |
| Total NOx emissions (tons per year) | 5,819 | 41,833 |
| Total VOC emissions (tons per year) | 21,105 | 56,149 |
| Total CO emissions (tons per year) | 36,468 | 261,499 |
Source: Utah Department of Environmental Quality 1996.
CO: carbon monoxide
NOx: nitrogen oxides
PM10: particles less than 10 microns in diameter
SO2: sulfur dioxide
VOC: volatile organic compound
Multiple Sclerosis: Questions and Answers
What is multiple sclerosis?
Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a chronic neurological disorder that affects the central nervous system (CNS), including the brain and spinal cord. Surrounding and protecting the nerve fibers of the CNS is a fatty tissue called myelin, which helps nerve fibers conduct electrical impulses. MS is characterized by inflammation and damage to myelin in multiple areas, leaving scar tissue. When myelin is destroyed or damaged, the ability of the nerves to conduct electrical impulses to and from the brain is disrupted, producing the various symptoms of MS.
What are the symptoms of multiple sclerosis?
Symptoms of multiple sclerosis are highly variable and include fatigue; tingling; numbness; painful sensations; blurred or double vision; muscle weakness; impaired balance; spasticity; tremor; changes in bladder, bowel, and sexual function; cognitive changes such as forgetfulness or difficulty concentrating; speech and swallowing problems; and mood swings. Symptoms can come and go, appear in any combination, and be mild, moderate, or severe. Some people experience only a few of these symptoms while others experience many more.
Is multiple sclerosis a rare disease? How many people are affected with multiple sclerosis?
Multiple sclerosis was among the first diseases to be scientifically described. Autopsies in 1838 clearly show what we now recognize as MS. Current estimates suggests it affects approximately 200,000 to 400,000 persons in the United States--350,000 persons is a common estimate (Curtis Noonan, MS Active Source, msn Health, personal correspondence, 2002).
Multiple sclerosis predominantly affects Caucasians and is two to three times more prevalent in women than men. Typically it strikes people between the ages of 20 and 40. Worldwide, MS occurs more frequently in the higher latitudes than in the lower latitudes closer to the equator. In the United States, MS also occurs more frequently in the northern regions (Curtis Noonan, personal correspondence, 2002). The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Health Interview Survey data suggest that for the western region of the United States (a large region that includes Utah), the prevalence of MS was 139 cases per 100,000 for women and 56 cases per 100,000 for men (Noonan et al. 2002).
How many cases of multiple sclerosis are there in Tooele County?
Currently there are no established federal- or state-sponsored MS disease registries. Therefore there are no accurate estimates of the number of MS cases for Tooele County, and there are no accurate estimates for other counties to compare against estimates for Tooele County.
How do you get multiple sclerosis? Is it contagious?
The specific causes of MS are unknown. Some research suggests that it is caused by a combination of environmental exposures, viral infections, immunologic factors, or a genetic predisposition to autoimmune disease. However, no definitive causal relationship has been identified to date.
Although some researchers suspect that viral infections play a role in the onset of MS, there is no evidence to suggest that MS in either infectious or contagious. If a virus or viruses are involved, they are believed to only affect people with a genetic predisposition to develop MS.
What specific environmental factors are associated with Multiple Sclerosis disease clusters?
No proven association or direct causative link has been established between environmental exposures and cases of MS. An environmental component, viral or otherwise, is suspected because of changing MS risk observed among some migrant populations, incomplete occurrence of the disease among identical (or monozygotic) twins, and the fact that the disease is not evenly distributed geographically.
What is ATSDR doing to study multiple sclerosis?
ATSDR recently collaborated with the Texas Department of Health on a retrospective cohort study of MS cases from a community living next to a metal smelter. The number of MS cases in the community was two times higher than expected. Recommendations of this study included conducting a national multi-site case-control study to better determine if metals exposure could be a possible cause of MS. In 2002, ATSDR partnered with several state and local health departments, as well as academic researchers, in Illinois, Massachusetts, Missouri, Ohio, Oregon, and Texas to investigate MS in some of the communities concerned about this condition. These efforts will help develop procedures and data collection instruments for case ascertainment and verification in other communities concerned about MS.
You can obtain more information about these efforts by contacting the ATSDR Information Center toll-free at 1-888-42-ATSDR or 1-888-422-8737, or by email at ATSDRIC@cdc.gov.
Where can I get additional information about multiple sclerosis?
There are several resources available for those who are interested in learning
more about MS. The National Multiple Sclerosis Society provides comprehensive
Internet-based resources including useful facts about the disease, historical
background information, current research initiatives, most current treatments,
and more. The Society's Web address is http://www.nationalmssociety.org/ .
The Utah State Chapter of the National Multiple Sclerosis Society, located
in Salt Lake City, can be contacted toll-free at 1-800-527-8116. They provide
a variety of informational, physical therapy, and support programs and events.
Their Web address is http://www.nationalmssociety.org/mycommunity/chapter.asp?ChapterID=9&state=UT .
Much of the general information presented in this section is based on summary articles presented in the following Web sites:
(Search on "multiple sclerosis" for current news articles and related Web sites)
http://www.nationalmssociety.org/
Questions and Answers About ATSDR's Review of Community Exposure From TEAD Open Burn/Open Detonation Activities
The following questions and answers summarize the basic community concerns regarding exposure to chemicals released during OB/OD operations.
Have any tests been done to find out what chemicals are released into the environment from these activities?
Yes. The Army has performed several different tests designed to:
What kind of information is available from these tests?
The Army bang-box tests identify the major contaminants released by OB/OD operations and roughly quantifies the mass released based on the net explosive weight of the munitions. Environmental sampling at TEAD and other sites confirms the identity of the major contaminants in the plume under most OB/OD operating conditions, and that off-base soil has likely not been contaminated by TEAD OB/OD activities. Air modeling simulations predict that OB/OD operations could affect the 24-hour ambient air quality for a few days each year, but for the majority of the year OB/OD operations are not expected to produce ambient air concentrations above the NAAQS. Air monitoring results in Grantsville confirm that the air quality there is within the NAAQS standards and does not appear to be affected by OB/OD operations.
What are the major constituents released in OB/OD plumes at TEAD?
Water vapor and CO2 are the major by-products of the combustion of all types of materials containing carbon and hydrogen. According to the reports reviewed, the other chemicals released into the plume in the greatest amounts are PM10, CO, nitric oxide (NO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), and total non-methane hydrocarbons.
Should I be concerned about being exposed to contaminants in the OB/OD plume?
No. It is unlikely that local residents will be exposed to hazardous contaminants in the plume because the potential exposure is somewhat intermittent (typically less than 90 days per year) and the measured PM10 data from Grantsville indicate that OB/OD operations do not influence the PM10 concentrations there. Additionally, the PM10 samples obtained between ¼ and 1 mile from the OB/OD range at TEAD indicate that concentrations of metals in the PM10 are much lower than the comparison values and soil samples collected from TEAD property indicate that the metal concentrations are within the range that would be acceptable for residential use. Soil concentrations in Grantsville and other surrounding communities are not expected to be elevated due to OB/OD operations.
What about the cumulative effect caused by 40 years of OB/OD activities? Could the total exposure affect our health?
Several years ago TEAD began to reduce the amount of explosives detonated in each pit to the current levels. Air sampling data are not available for the time period when larger amounts of explosives were used, so it is not possible to estimate the actual concentration of PM10 or other constituents in the air. However, the soil sampling results (samples obtained from TEAD property representing near, downwind, and background soil compared to the OB/OD activity) indicate that TEAD soil does not contain high levels of metals that could result in adverse health effects. This suggests that the chemicals released during the OB/OD operations are not accumulating in the soil.
Residents of nearby communities are not expected to experience any type of adverse health effect resulting from contact with the soil in their yards or neighborhoods due to OB/OD operations. The potential exposure to chemicals in the plume as a result of the higher amounts of explosive materials used in the past is indeterminate.
What if people decide to build homes near the southwest corner of TEAD?
This evaluation was directed to the areas that are currently used as residential property. ATSDR recommends that if land adjacent to the southwest corner of TEAD is to be considered for residential use, environmental data and OB/OD operational practices be re-evaluated to ensure that the proposed land use is appropriate.
ATSDR's CHILDREN'S HEALTH CONSIDERATIONS
ATSDR recognizes that infants and children may be more sensitive than adults to environmental exposure in communities faced with contamination of their water, soil, air, or food. This sensitivity is a result of the following factors: 1) children are more likely to be exposed to certain media like soil when they play outdoors; 2) children are shorter and therefore may be more likely to breathe dust, soil, and vapors close to the ground; and 3) children are smaller than adults and therefore may receive a higher dose of chemical exposure relative to their body weight. Children also can sustain permanent damage if exposed to toxic substances during critical growth stages. ATSDR is committed to evaluating children's special interests at sites such as Tooele Army Depot as part of its Children's Health Considerations.
ATSDR evaluated the likelihood that children living at or near TEAD may have been or are currently being exposed to contaminants at levels of health concern. TEAD does not have any on-site housing and children are generally not allowed on TEAD. There are no day care centers on site and none are expected in the future. There is one school, the Tooele Alternative High School, located at TEAD. This school has approximately 42 full-time and 100 part-time students and includes 9th through 12th grades. ATSDR did not identify any situations at TEAD in which children were likely to have been exposed to contaminants at levels that pose a health concern. The parents of children who lived in the rental units with lead-based paint were informed by the rental management company about the potential that lead-based paint was in their homes and received information about how they could protect their children. ATSDR also did not identify any situations where children living off site near TEAD would have been or are currently being exposed to site-related contaminants, either through soil, drinking water, surface water, or air.
ATSDR's review of available information indicates that people residing near TEAD have not been, and are not now being, exposed to site-related contaminants at levels that could result in adverse health effects. After evaluating available environmental information, ATSDR has drawn the following conclusions regarding media- and site-specific exposures:
The public health action plan (PHAP) for Tooele Army Depot contains a description of actions to be taken by ATSDR and other government agencies at and in the vicinity of the site upon completion of this PHA. The PHAP is designed to ensure that this PHA not only identifies public health hazards, but provides a plan of action designed to mitigate and prevent adverse human health effects resulting from exposure to hazardous substances in the environment. The plan includes a commitment on the part of ATSDR to follow up and ensure that the plan is implemented. The public health actions completed and ongoing or planned are as follows:
Actions Completed
Actions Ongoing or Planned
Susan Neurath, Ph.D.
Environmental Health Scientist
Federal Facilities Assessment Branch
Division of Health Assessment and Consultation
Len Young, M.S.
Epidemiologist
Eastern Research Group
REVIEWERS OF REPORT
Diane Jackson
Environmental Health Scientist
Federal Facilities Assessment Branch
Division of Health Assessment and Consultation
Gary Campbell, Ph.D.
Environmental Health Scientist
Federal Facilities Assessment Branch
Division of Health Assessment and Consultation
Ageiss (Ageiss Environmental, Inc.). 1994. Final enhanced preliminary assessment report for Tooele Army Depot-North Area. October 5, 1994.
American Cancer Society. 2001. Cancer facts and figures 2001. Atlanta: American Cancer Society.
American Cancer Society. 2002. Cancer facts and figures 2002. Atlanta: American Cancer Society.
Best Manufacturing Survey. 1999. Tooele Army Depot--Tooele UT: survey summary.
December 1999. http://www.bmpcoe.org/bestpractices/internal/tead/summary.html .
Bureau of Surveillance and Analysis. 1998. Utah's Healthy People 2000 Health
Status Indicators by Local Health District. Salt Lake City, UT: Utah Department
of Health. http://www.health.state.ut.us/action2000/hsilhd.html
CES (Chem-Nuclear Environmental Services, Inc.). 1991. United States Army Toxic and Hazardous Materials Agency (USATHAMA) remedial investigations/feasibility studies. Volume I, revised final work plan. December 1991.
Dames & Moore. 1998a. Risk assessment for the Industrial Waste Lagoon, SWMU 2, TEAD. March 1998.
Dames & Moore. 1998b. Draft report groundwater monitoring Industrial Wastewater Lagoon post-closure permit investigation. June 1998.
Department of the Army. 1984. Installation environmental assessment, Tooele Army Depot North and South Areas. November 1994.
Department of the Army. 1997. TEAD drinking water analysis results for lead and copper. February 26, 1997.
Department of the Army. 1998a. TEAD drinking water analysis results for lead and copper testing for systems 23022. January 21, 1998.
Department of the Army. 1998b. TEAD drinking water analysis results for coliform, nitrate, pesticides, and VOCS. March 30, 1998.
Earth Tech. 1995. Base realignment and closure (BRAC) cleanup plan, Tooele Army Depot-North Area Tooele, Utah. June 1995.
Ebasco (Ebasco Services Inc.). 1991. Tooele Army Depot-South Area suspected releases, RCRA facility investigation--Phase I draft report. April 1991.
Governor's Office of Planning and Budget. 2001. Economic report to the governor, 2001. Salt Lake City: State of Utah. January 2001.
Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA). 2000. Community Health Status Report Tooele County Utah July 2000. Merrifield, VA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. July 2000.
HOH Associates, Inc., Leland Consulting Group, The Sear-Brown Group, Kuhn-Grimm Consulting, Inc. 1995. Tooele Army Depot conversion and reuse plan. March 1995.
Kleinfelder, Inc. 1998a. Northeastern boundary area groundwater investigation Report of findings. Volume 1. March 1998.
Kleinfelder, Inc. 1998b. Eastern boundary groundwater investigation report of findings. Volume I. June 1998.
Kleinfelder, Inc. 2000. Phase I RCRA facility investigation report for SWMU 58: on-post sources and groundwater contamination Tooele Army Depot. Volume I. October 2000.
Montgomery (James M. Montgomery, Consulting Engineers, Inc.). 1987. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers alternate concentration limit position paper, Tooele Army Depot, Utah. March 1987.
Montgomery (James M. Montgomery Consulting Engineers, Inc.). 1988. Groundwater quality assessment engineering report, Tooele Army Depot, Utah. December 1988.
Montgomery (James M. Montgomery, Consulting Engineers, Inc.). 1989. Record of decision for groundwater remediation final. April 1989.
Montgomery Watson. 1997. Final (2nd revision) RCRA facility investigation report Tooele Army Depot north area Group A suspected releases SWMUs phase II Study. August 1997.
Noonan CW, Kathman SJ, White MC. 2002. Prevalence estimates for MS in the United States and evidence of an increasing trend for women. Neurology 58:136-8.
Notarianni PF. 2002. Mining. In: State of Utah. Utah history to go. http://historytogo.utah.gov/mining.html .
Rust (Rust Environment and Infrastructure). 1994. TEAD-N final remedial investigation for Operable Units 4-10. Volume 1. February 1994.
Rust (Rust Environment and Infrastructure). 1997. Revised final remedial investigation addendum report for OUs 4, 8, and 9. Volume I. February 1997.
SAIC (Science Applications International Corporation). 1997a. Final (2nd revision) phase II RCRA facility investigations report, Tooele Army Depot-North Area Group A suspected releases SWMUs. Volume I. August 1997.
SAIC (Science Applications International Corporation). 1997b. Revised final Tooele Army Depot Group B suspected releases SWMUs phase II RCRA facility investigation report. Volume I: Technical Report. December 1997.
SAIC (Science Applications International Corporation). 1998. Revised final Tooele Army Depot base realignment and closure parcel Group C SWMUs RCRA facility investigation report. Volume I: Technical Report. April 1998.
TEAD (Tooele Army Depot). 1993. Technical report for blast noise and dust sample monitoring of conventional ammunition detonation pits, Tooele Army Depot North and South Areas. January/February 1993.
TEAD. 1994. Drinking water analysis results for nitrate, nitrite, and VOCs. August 30, 1994.
TEAD (Tooele Army Depot). 1998. Hazardous waste storage, incineration, and open burning/open detonation permit. Volumes I and II. June 30, 1998.
TEAD (Tooele Army Depot). 2001. Off-site well installation update. July 17, 2001.
TEAD (Tooele Army Depot). 2002. Hazardous Waste Storage, Incineration, and Open Burning/Open Detonation Permit. Attachment 25 OB/OD Unit Air Modeling. April 2002.
TEAD (Tooele Army Depot). 2002. Hazardous Waste Storage, Incineration, and Open Burning/Open Detonation Permit. Attachment 26 OB/OD Risk Assessment and Risk Management. April 2002.
Terracon (Terracon Consultants Western, Inc.). 1997a. Drinking water source protection plan, Well #1. June 4, 1997.
Terracon (Terracon Consultants Western, Inc.). 1997b. Drinking water source protection plan, Well #3. June 4, 1997.
Tooele County Chamber of Commerce. 2001. Demographics. http://www.trilobyte.net/chamber/demographics.htm .
UDWR (Utah Division of Water Rights). 2001. Water right information. http://nrwrt1.nr.state.ut.us/wrinfo/default.htm .
September 4, 2001.
US Army. 1998. Declaration of covenants, conditions, and restrictions for economic development conveyance, Tooele Army Depot. November 1998.
USAEC (US Army Environmental Center, Public Affairs). 1994. Final community involvement plan Tooele Army Depot. December 1994.
USATHAMA. 1979. Installation assessment of Tooele Army Depot. Report No. 141.
USATHAMA. 1991. Remedial investigations/feasibility studies revised final work plan. Volume I. December 1991.
USEPA (Region VIII). 1991. The Utah Department of Environmental Quality and the U.S. Army Federal Facility Agreement under CERCLA Section 120. Attachment 3 (statement of facts). September1991.
USEPA. 1998. Emission Factors for the Disposal of Energetic Materials by Open Burning and Open Detonation (OB/OD). (EPA/600/R-98/103).
USGS (United States Geological Survey). 1997. Recharge and discharge areas and quality of groundwater in Tooele Valley, Tooele County, Utah. Water-resources investigation report 97-4005.
Utah Cancer Registry. 1996. Cancer in Utah 1966-1994. Salt Lake City: Utah Cancer Registry. September 1996.
Utah Department of Environmental Quality. 1996. 1996 state summary of emissions
by source. Salt Lake City: State of Utah, Department of Environmental Quality,
Division of Air Quality. http://www.deq.state.ut.us/EQAIR/Inventory/1996_State/State_List.htm .
Utah Department of Health. 1995a. A review of cancer rates in Grantsville, Utah. Salt Lake City: Utah Department of Health, Bureau of Epidemiology. December 1995.
Utah Department of Health. 1995b. Utah's Healthy People 2000 health status indicators by local health department district. Salt Lake City: Utah Department of Health. June 1995.
Utah Department of Health. 1997a. Health assessment MagCorp chlorine and hydrogen chloride gas emissions, Grantsville, Utah. Salt Lake City: Utah Department of Health, Bureau of Epidemiology. April 16, 1997.
Utah Department of Health. 1997b. Utah birth defects registry report: activities and 1995 cases. Salt Lake City: Utah Department of Health. February 1997.
Utah Department of Health. 1999. Utah Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System local health district report. Salt Lake City: Utah Department of Health. December 1999.
Utah Division of Drinking Water. 2000. Drinking water sampling requirements for Tooele Army Depot. May 2000.
Utah DOH (Utah Department of Health, Division of Epidemiology and Laboratory Service). 2001. Analysis results for VOCs and pesticides. March 12, 2001.
Additional Web Sites Consulted for this PHA
http://www.focusoncancer.com
http://cis.nci.nih.gov
http://www.equineestates.com/library/veterinarian/va001.htm
http://www.horsecity.com/stories/102100/hea_nubort.shtml
http://www.epa.gov/safewater/pwells1.html
http://www.deq.state.ut.us/EQAMC/amc.htm
http://www.deq.state.ut.us/EQAIR/Inventory/1996_State/State_List.htm
http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/emissions/
http://www.epa.gov/air/data/index.html
http://www.epa.gov/ceisweb1/ceishome/ceisdocs/tri/tri-exec.htm
http://www.epa.gov/enviro/html/tris/tris_state.html
http://www.deq.state.ut.us/EQAIR/aq_home.htm
http://www.deq.state.ut.us/EQAIR/PLANNING/Emisinv.htm
http://www.ms-library.org
http://www.ms-doctors.org
http://www.msactivesource.com
Next Section Table
of Contents
