PUBLIC HEALTH ASSESSMENT
FORT RILEY
(a/k/a FORT RILEY MILITARY RESERVATION)
FORT RILEY, GEARY COUNTY, KANSAS
EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL EXPOSURE PATHWAYS
In this section, ATSDR evaluates whether community members have been (past), are (current) or could be (future) exposed to harmful levels of chemicals. Figure 3 presents the conservative exposure evaluation process used by ATSDR. As the figure indicates, ATSDR considers how people might come into contact with, or be exposed to, contaminated media. Specifically, ATSDR determines whether an exposure could occur through ingestion, dermal (skin) contact with contaminated media, or inhalation of vapors, and also considers the likely length (duration) and frequency of the exposure.
If exposure was or is possible, ATSDR then considers whether chemicals were or are present at levels that might be harmful to people. ATSDR does this by screening the concentrations of contaminants in an environmental medium against health-based comparison values (CVs). CVs are chemical concentrations that health scientists have determined are not likely to cause adverse effects, even when assuming very conservative/safe exposure scenarios. Because CVs are not thresholds of toxicity, environmental levels that exceed comparison values would not necessarily produce adverse health effects. If a chemical is found in the environment at levels exceeding its corresponding CV, ATSDR examines potential exposure variables and the toxicology of the contaminant. ATSDR emphasizes that regardless of the level of contamination, a public health hazard exists only if people come in contact with, or are otherwise exposed to, harmful levels of contaminated media.
After an initial review of potential health hazards at Fort Riley, ATSDR identified the groundwater and soil exposure pathways as requiring further evaluation. Following the strategy outlined above, ATSDR examined whether human exposure to harmful levels of contaminants via these pathways existed in the past, exists now, or could potentially exist in the future. ATSDR summarizes its evaluation of potential exposure pathways in Table 2 and describes them in more detail in the discussion that follows. To acquaint readers with terminology used in this report, an explanation of the different types of CVs and a glossary are included in Appendices A and B, respectively. In addition, Appendix C presents the methods and assumptions used to estimate exposures and support some of the public health assessment’s conclusions.
Evaluation of the Groundwater Exposure Pathway
Conclusion
No public health hazards associated with consuming water from groundwater-supplied drinking water sources have occurred in the past, even for people who drank water from the downgradient auto speedway drinking water wells. No exposure is currently occurring, nor is any exposure likely to occur in the future.
Discussion
Groundwater Use
Fort Riley obtains its drinking water primarily from eight alluvial groundwater-supplied wells. Six wells, known as the Main Post wells and located between the Main Post and Camp Forsyth, were brought on line between 1928 and 1943. Two other wells, located at Camp Forsyth and known as the Forsyth wells, started operating in 1958 (Louis Berger & Associates, Inc., 1997a). In 1993, Fort Riley replaced the two Forsyth wells with two newer wells located about a quarter mile west of the older Main Post wells (Louis Berger & Associates, Inc., 1997a). Water levels of the Fort Riley water supply wells generally range from 15 to 25 feet bgs. Once groundwater is drawn from the eight active wells, it is blended in a single distribution network that supplies drinking water for all six cantonment areas. An additional well located at Marshall Army Airfield supplies drinking water under emergency situations only (Louis Berger & Associates, Inc., 1993a, 1993b).
Fort Riley also operates wells that draw from the bedrock aquifer. These wells are located at the Range Control, MPRC/Douthit Range, Trainfire 4, and Range 18. The Range Control wells, located more than 4 miles north of the Main Post, regularly supply water for about 12 persons (military and civilian personnel) and the MPRC/Douthit Range wells, located about 12 miles northwest of the Main Post, supply up to 600 persons (military and civilian personnel) with drinking water on an as needed basis (Louis Berger & Associates, Inc., 1993a). Neither the Trainfire 4 or Range 18 wells are used for drinking water.
Most of the communities surrounding Fort Riley rely on groundwater drawn from the alluvial aquifer as the source of their municipal drinking water. Junction City has nine active wells and Ogden Municipal Water District, which serves the town of Ogden, has three active wells. Junction City also provides water to Grandview Plaza and the Ogden Municipal Water District also provides water to a rural water district in Riley County (Louis Berger & Associates, Inc., 1997a; Grandview Plaza, 1999). In addition, the Morris County Rural Water District, which services areas south and southeast of Fort Riley, oversees two recently installed wells (1994) along the Kansas River. Unlike the other communities, the town of Riley uses seven wells that draw water from the limestone bedrock aquifer at depths of about 90 to 110 feet bgs (Louis Berger & Associates, Inc., 1993a).
In lieu of public water, some area residents and businesses rely on private wells that draw from the alluvial aquifer for their drinking water. Several of these private wells are located within a half mile north (and in the direction of groundwater flow) of Fort Riley’s MAAF-FFTA boundary. The MAAF-FFTA, located on the south side of the Kansas River, was operated from the mid-1960s through 1984 to conduct fire training exercises. Three private wells, R-1, R-2, and R-3, located on land used as an automotive speedway since the early 1980s, are closest to the MAAF-FFTA (Figure 4). R-1, located in an enclosed building about 600 feet from the MAAF-FFTA, supplied the auto speedway concession stand and may have been used for washing and drinking. The concession stand was open during racing events—about 1 to 2 nights a week between May and September. Water from the R-1 well has not been used at the concession stand since about 1993, when monitoring revealed elevated levels of TCE, PCE, and 1,2-dichloroethylene (1,2-DCE) in the well water.(1) R-2, located in the interior of the track about 400 feet from the fire training pit, supplied and continues to supply water for vehicle washing and dust control of the speedway but never for human consumption. Well R-3, also located inside the track and used in the past for vehicle washing and speedway dust control, has not been used for several years (Louis Berger & Associates, Inc., 1997a).
Further from the MAAF-FFTA and immediately north of the speedway is another private alluvial well known as M-1. This well provides drinking and domestic use water for occupants of a trailer and an active machine shop. Additional alluvial private wells located north of the MAAF-FFTA site include two domestic wells used at private residences and a farm and one irrigation well used since 1994 for irrigation of animal crops only (Louis Berger & Associates, Inc., 1997a). No evidence exists of any wells, of recent residential development, or of any anticipated uses of the groundwater in the area of the MAAF-FFTA.
In addition to the private wells identified near MAAF-FFTA, some residents of the upland areas, outside of town limits, use private wells that tap into the limestone bedrock aquifer. These wells are not likely to be affected by Fort Riley contaminants because they are located more than 2 miles from the installation boundaries and draw water from the bedrock (Louis Berger & Associates, Inc., 1997a).
Nature and Extent of Groundwater Contamination
On-Post: VOCs, primarily PCE, TCE, 1,2-DCE and/or vinyl chloride, contaminate the alluvial aquifer groundwater at the MAAF-FFTA, DCF, and SFL at levels above ATSDR CVs. Only very low levels of VOCs were detected at the PSF. Nitrate (9.2 to 33,000 parts per billion [ppb]) was frequently found at the PSF but often at levels similar to background concentrations (6,500 ppb) and EPA’s maximum contaminant level (MCL) of 10,000 ppb (Fort Riley, 1995, 1997). In other PAOCs there is no evidence of contaminant releases to groundwater, and the likelihood of a release is considered low because either the PAOC-specific contaminants are immobile, the wastes are in a solid form, or there is little evidence that hazardous substances are even present at the PAOC.
Some of the highest VOC levels reported at Fort Riley were found in the vicinity of the MAAF-FFTA. The MAAF-FFTA was operated from the mid-1960s through 1984 to conduct fire training classes. During typical fire training procedures, flammable liquids were dumped into a 200 feet by 200 feet unlined crushed stone pit, ignited, and extinguished. Repeated use of the area in this way probably led to chemicals leaching from the unlined pit, through the soil, and into the underlying groundwater. In August 1982, 55 gallons of PCE, inadvertently poured into the fire training pit, may also have migrated to underlying groundwater before it was pumped out the following day (Louis Berger & Associates, Inc., 1997a).
Since October 1993, Fort Riley conducted several phases of investigations to further characterize the nature and extent of contaminants beneath and potentially migrating from the MAAF-FFTA area. Over the course of these investigations, Fort Riley installed about 12 on-post monitoring wells at and near the fire training pit in the MAAF-FFTA (Fort Riley, 1999a). Through the various sampling events, Fort Riley found 1,2-DCE (maximum 4,100 ppb), PCE (maximum 320 ppb), and TCE (maximum 96 ppb) in the shallow alluvial aquifer beneath the site at levels above ATSDR’s CVs and EPA’s MCLs (see Table 3). Sampling has found decreasing levels of contaminants in the shallow aquifer over time. During the May 1999, sampling event, in on-post monitoring wells, 1,2-DCE, PCE, and TCE were found at a maximum of 95.9 ppb, 4 ppb, and 2.6 ppb, respectively. When monitoring deeper layers of the on-post alluvial aquifer, Fort Riley did not detect any VOCs attributable to MAAF-FFTA. This finding suggests that the on-post groundwater VOC contaminants are restricted to the shallow layers of the alluvial aquifer (the uppermost 20 feet). Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) (e.g., naphthalene [maximum 73 ppb]) have also been found in the groundwater beneath the fire training pit. The presence of PAHs is most likely attributed to the burning that occurred at the fire training pit. (Louis Berger & Associates, Inc., 1997a; Burns & McDonnell, 1998a, 1998b, 1999).
Off-Post: A shallow alluvial groundwater plume containing VOCs has migrated beyond the MAAF-FFTA boundary, passing through the off-post auto speedway and terminating about 2,000 feet from the fire training pit (Burns & McDonnell, 1999). As Table 3 indicates, high levels of 1,2-DCE (maximum 685 ppb), PCE (maximum 56 ppb), and TCE (maximum 190 ppb) have been measured in the off-post shallow groundwater monitoring wells located within the plume downgradient from the MAAF-FFTA. The highest levels have generally centered around wells R-1 and R-2 at the auto speedway (Louis Berger & Associates, Inc., 1997a; Burns & McDonnell, 1998a, 1998b, 1999). Since 1994, the shallow VOC plume appears to have narrowed along the direction of groundwater flow; the thinning is not attributed to actual changes in the extent of shallow contamination, but rather to improvements made in defining the boundaries of contamination (e.g., use of more monitoring wells). The plume is currently estimated to be about 500 feet wide at its widest part (Fort Riley, 1999a). No PAHs were found in any downgradient monitoring wells.
VOCs associated with the MAAF-FFTA plume were first detected in the downgradient R-1 private well in 1993, when KDHE sampled the well as part of a permit application submitted by the auto speedway owner (Louis Berger & Associates, Inc., 1997a). At the time, 1,2-DCE (155 ppb), PCE (263 ppb), and TCE (36.8 ppb) were detected at levels above ATSDR’s CVs and/or EPA’s MCLs. Between 1993 and 1997, Fort Riley conducted quarterly monitoring of the drinking water quality in the R-1, R-2, and M-1 wells and for the other private wells located downgradient of the MAAF area. Since 1997, they have monitored private well water quality approximately three times a year (Fort Riley, 1999c). Since 1993, 1,2-DCE, PCE, and TCE have been detected at a maximum concentration (in all three wells) of 290 ppb, 330 ppb, and 96 ppb, respectively, but, in general, the VOC concentrations in the well water have significantly decreased over time (see Table 4) Louis Berger & Associates, Inc., 1997a; Burns & McDonnell, 1998a, 1998b, 1999)). In fact, results from the most recent groundwater quality sampling event (May 1999) confirmed that PCE (<1.1 - 1.6 ppb), 1,2-DCE (1.5 - 11.5 ppb), and TCE (<0.6 - 3.7 ppb) levels in wells R-1, R-2, and M-1 are below their respective MCL (Fort Riley, 1999b, 1999d). Other than R-1, R-2, and M-1, the VOC plume from MAAF-FFTA has not reached or affected other nearby private wells at levels above health-based drinking water standards (Louis Berger & Associates, Inc., 1997a).
Recently, sampling of off-post monitoring wells installed in the intermediate and deep aquifers has indicated that the MAAF-FFTA VOC plume is also migrating downgradient in these aquifers. In these aquifers, the plume extends approximately 6,000 feet downgradient of the MAAF-FFTA site.
Evaluation of Potential Public Health Hazards
Past Exposure
Although VOCs have been detected in groundwater monitoring wells at and downgradient from the fire training area and in private wells located at the nearby auto speedway, it is unlikely that people were exposed to harmful levels of VOCs when they drank water. Available information indicates that the on-post drinking water supply and area public water supply wells have been tested in the past to ensure that the water quality met safe drinking water standards.(2) Furthermore, these wells are located away from and upgradient to the MAAF-FFTA where a VOC plume originates. Therefore, contaminants associated with MAAF-FFTA are not likely to reach other on-post and public water supplies. Fort Riley water supply wells are located more than 3 miles from the fire training pit; the Junction City wells are located slightly more than 4 miles away; and the town of Ogden wells are approximately 4.5 miles northeast of and on the opposite side of the river from the fire training pit.
Visitors and workers at the auto speedway may have been exposed to VOCs when they drank water from the concession stand. As mentioned above, 1,2-DCE, PCE, and TCE are chemicals that have been detected at levels above both ATSDR’s CVs and EPA’s MCLs in the private wells (R-1 and R-2) located at the auto speedway. To conservatively evaluate the potential public health impacts from exposure to these VOCs in the R-1 drinking water well for visitors or workers at the speedway, ATSDR calculated exposure doses using the maximum detected concentrations of and 1,2-DCE (290 ppb), PCE (330 ppb), and TCE (96 ppb), in either the R-1 or R-2 wells (even though R-2 was reportedly not used for human consumption) and conservative ingestion rates (2 liters per day). Because we do not know when contaminants first reached the wells, ATSDR also conservatively assumed that visitors or workers would have consumed drinking water 40 days a year (2 days a week from May to September) over a 13-year period (roughly from 1980, when the auto speedway opened, to 1993, when people were advised not to drink tap water at the speedway). ATSDR assumed that 100 percent of the water used for drinking came from the affected well, a highly conservative assumption about exposure since most consumers probably drank water from other sources on the presumed days of exposure and were probably exposed to much lower concentrations, if any, over time. A more detailed discussion about the methods and assumptions used in ATSDR’s evaluation is presented in Appendix C of this PHA.
ATSDR compared the estimated doses with available health guidelines (such as ATSDR’s minimal risk levels and EPA’s reference doses), cancer guidelines, and with data from available toxicologic studies. (The health guidelines provide a conservative estimate of daily exposures to a chemical that are not likely to result in adverse effects, even for the most sensitive members of a community [e.g., pregnant women, children]). In its analysis, ATSDR found that, even when assuming an individual drank all his or her water from the concession stand containing the highest chemical concentrations, the estimated doses are less than the corresponding health guidelines and often many times lower than adverse effect levels reported in toxicologic literature for daily lifetime ingestion of these chemicals. For this reason, ATSDR finds that past consumption of drinking water probably did not harm the health of workers or visitors at the auto speedway or increase their likelihood of developing cancer.
Current and Future Exposures
Exposure is not occurring now. The R-1 and R-2 wells have not been used for drinking water since contamination was detected in 1993. Although VOC concentrations in R-1 and R-2 well water have decreased over time, high concentrations of VOCs continue to be measured beneath certain areas of the speedway. Fort Riley has proposed installing a new common alluvial well outside the influence of contamination to replace the R-1 and R-2 wells; replacement of the M-1 well is a contingency plan if contaminants in that well are found to exceed MCLs. Currently, the Army is awaiting approval from the speedway owner before installing the new well (Fort Riley, 1998d, 1999a; Louis Berger & Associates, Inc., 1997b).
Evaluation of the Soil Exposure Pathway
Conclusion
No past, current, or future public health hazards are associated with exposure to contaminated soils at Fort Riley because contamination is either located where exposure was infrequent or unlikely, is detected only at low levels, or has been removed from the installation.
Discussion
Nature and Extent of Soil Contamination
The RI activities at Fort Riley involved collecting soil samples from most of the suspected contaminant source areas (Louis Berger & Associates, Inc., 1993; Fort Riley, 1998a). Information on these sources is summarized in Table 1. For many of these areas at the post soil samples revealed no contamination at levels above health-based CVs. Areas of the installation where chemical contaminant levels in surface soil exceeded the CVs include the PSF and several other areas where lead bullet fragments were an issue. The primary soil contaminants measured in these areas are pesticides, PAHs, and/or metals, primarily lead and arsenic. Lead contamination was also found on a piece of land (SFL) transferred by Fort Riley to the Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks. The discussion that follows addresses human exposure to soils in these areas. Because ATSDR considers the surface soil to be representative of exposure levels and subsurface soil is generally inaccessible to the public, the discussion focuses on potential exposure to contaminants in surface soil (0 -1 foot bgs).
Pesticide Storage Facility Area
The Main Post’s PSF site occupies about two-thirds of an acre around Building 348, located just about 2,000 feet north and west of the Kansas River. Before the late 1970s, Fort Riley used the area adjacent to Building 348 to wash down vehicles and spray equipment used for pesticide applications. Over time, routine site activities resulted in accidental spills and releases of pesticide formulations to the surrounding soil. After 1976, much of the pesticides-related activities near Building 348 ceased when Fort Riley hired outside contractors to perform pesticide applications. In addition to pesticides, several PCB transformers were stored at the southeast corner of the building (Fort Riley, 1997).
Fort Riley first detected soil contamination during pesticide-use monitoring activities conducted in the early 1980s. Following these detections, Fort Riley conducted RI field activities in 1992 and 1993 in which they collected more than 100 surface soil samples. The sampling indicated that pesticides, including 1,1,1-trichloro-2,2-bis(p-chlorophenyl)ethane (DDT) (0.006 - 2.63 parts per million [ppm]), chlordane (0.021 - 5.89 ppm), dieldrin (0.007 - 1.4 ppm), and heptachlor (0.001 - 0.129 ppm), were common in surface soil at the PSF. With the exception of a few high detections of chlordane, DDT, and dieldrin, most contaminant concentrations were below ATSDR’s most conservative CVs (cancer risk evaluation guides [CREGs]). Arsenic was routinely detected at elevated levels, but the levels were similar to concentrations detected in background areas. All other metal concentrations were below ATSDR CVs (Law Engineering and Environmental Services, Inc., 1995).
Following these detections, Fort Riley removed approximately 2,700 tons of soil in 1994 where contaminant concentrations exceeded established soil contaminant concentrations (action levels) for pesticides, and then disposed the soil in an appropriate off-site landfill. Sampling conducted after the removal showed that the contamination had largely been removed through this removal action, and that the maximum concentrations of all pesticides in surface soil had been greatly reduced. The excavated areas were backfilled with clean fill material (Fort Riley, 1997).
High Priority Sites Potentially Contaminated With Lead
Through the Installation Wide Site Assessment, Fort Riley identified four areas where people could possibly contact soil contaminated with lead bullet fragments. These four areas are: the former Camp Forsyth Range area, which currently is the location of the Colyer Manor Housing Area for military personnel and their families; the former Mullins Park, which received soil from the former Camp Forsyth Range; and the Ware and Custer Hill Elementary Schools, which received soil from Range 55 at Custer Hill in late 1989 to replace the high clay content soil that could not support grass cover (Louis Berger & Associates, Inc., 1993a).
Fort Riley became concerned when lead bullet fragments were noted in the fill material used at the schools. Fort Riley removed visible lead bullet fragments and sampled soil (both surface soil and subsurface soil) for residual lead contamination from the four areas of concern. Specifically, they collected samples from: 1) large tracks of land in the Colyer Manor Housing Area, including several ballfields, a recreational area that received fill from former firing ranges, and bluffs once used as a backstops for firing practice; 2) from play yards and ballfields at both the Ware and Custer Hill Elementary Schools; and 3) from areas once used as playgrounds and for picnicking at the former Mullins Park (Louis Berger & Associates, Inc., 1993b).
Results of the soil sampling investigations indicated that the majority of the lead concentrations in surface soil samples (and subsurface soil samples) collected from the four areas of concern were well below EPA’s guideline of 400 ppm for residential soil, and most were even below the detection limit of 40 ppm. Only a small area of the Colyer Manor Housing Area near the bluffs showed lead at levels exceeding the EPA guideline. The housing complex is located on the former Camp Forsyth firing range, where munitions were commonly emptied and disposed on to the ground surface. Close to 100 surface soil samples (up to 1 foot bgs) were collected from this area, but the elevated levels of lead (1,250 to 1,700 ppm) were found in only three samples taken from an isolated 150 feet by 200 feet grassy section near Building 3135 near the bluff.(3) Since detecting contamination at this site, Fort Riley temporarily closed the area near Building 3135 to public access, excavated the contaminated soil, and then backfilled the excavated area with clean fill in the spring of 1994 (Louis Berger & Associates, Inc., 1993a; Fort Riley, 1997, 1998a).
Southeast Funston Landfill and Incinerator Area
During the "Other Sites" investigation conducted after the Installation Wide Site Assessment, high levels of metals were found in soils at a site known as the Southeast Funston Landfill and Incinerator Area. This site is located adjacent to Camp Funston in the southern portion of Fort Riley. The site consists of a 50-acre landfill that received waste from Fort Riley activities until the mid-1950s and an incinerator thought to have been operated concurrently with the landfill. The incinerator was partially dismantled in 1967. In the mid-1970s, Kansas Highway 18 was constructed across the landfill, separating it into eastern and western portions. The incinerator is located on the eastern portion. The eastern portion of the site was transferred to the Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks in 1989. The site has not yet been developed by the Department of Wildlife and Parks and receives little use. However, the Department of Wildlife and Parks has proposed developing the area to increase access to the Kansas River, which would result in increased human exposure to the area.
Lead associated with ash was detected above state and federal standards in soil samples from the incinerator area during the "Other Sites" investigation in April 1995. Thus, an Expanded Site Investigation was conducted for the eastern portion of the site in March 1997. One hundred five soil samples were screened using an XRF monitoring instrument. Sixteen samples exceeded the 400 ppm guidance level used by both EPA and the Kansas Department of Health and Environment. Because of the limited exposure to the area, these levels were determined not to pose a public health hazard under conditions existing at the time. However, because use of the area was expected to increase, Fort Riley prepared a plan for a removal action at the site to reduce soil lead levels to below 400 ppm. The plan calls for excavation of "hot spots" with high lead levels and reburial of the soil on Fort Riley property. This plan has gone through the public comment process and received approval from regulators, and the contract to perform the removal action has been awarded (Fort Riley, 1999e).
Evaluation of Potential Public Health Hazards
Past, Current, and Future Exposures
In general, contaminated soils at the PSF were inaccessible to the public because the soils were in a protected area and away from Fort Riley residences and schools. On-post workers may have contacted low-levels of contaminated soil during their routine work, but exposure, if any, probably occurred infrequently and for only short periods of time. No current or future exposures are likely to occur because pesticides have not been used at the PSF in more than 20 years and soil remediation and cleanup have successfully removed contaminated soil. ATSDR also assumes that workers in the PSF area wore proper protective equipment in accordance with Occupational Safety and Health Administration regulations, further reducing their chances of coming in direct contact with contaminants in soil.
Lead concentrations in surface soil at the Colyer Manor Housing Area exceeded EPA’s guidance level of 400 ppm. In 1994, Fort Riley fenced the contaminated area to restrict access, removed the lead-contaminated soil from the Colyer Manor Housing Area, and replaced the excavated material with soil that has been certified as clean (Fort Riley, 1998a). Although lead is a concern for adults, children are particularly susceptible to the adverse effects from lead exposure. Scientific evidence indicates that blood lead levels of 10 to 25 micrograms per deciliter (µg/dL) may be related to delayed cognitive development. Site-specific information regarding child blood levels at Colyer Manor Housing Area is not available, however, numerous investigations have been conducted to correlate soil concentrations with blood lead levels. In general, blood lead levels increase approximately 1 to 7µg/dL for every 1,000 ppm increase in lead soil concentrations (CDC, 1991). With the exception of the three samples with concentrations ranging from 1,250 ppm to 1,700 ppm, all samples contained lead at concentrations below the 1,000 ppm associated with the 1 to 7µg/dL increase in blood lead level. Therefore, lead found in soil is not expected to significantly increase blood lead levels in children who lived at the Colyer Manor Housing Area before the contaminated soil was removed. Furthermore, soil surrounding the housing complex was covered with grass, which generally reduces opportunities for direct contact with or incidental ingestion of lead in soil. Because either no contamination or only low levels of lead was found in soil, no further actions to address lead in soil were required at the former Mullins Park or at the Ware or Custer Hill Elementary Schools (Fort Riley, 1999c).
Contaminated soils at the Southeast Funston Landfill and Incinerator Area site were in an area not frequently accessed by the public. Sporadic exposures to the levels of lead found in soil would not pose a public health hazard. Fort Riley will clean up contamination to levels suitable for residential use before the site is developed to increase access; thus, the site will not pose a future health hazard.
As part of its community relations activities, Fort Riley meets periodically with community members to monitor community concerns. Through discussions with community members attending these meetings and from discussions with local health officials, no specific health concerns have been brought to ATSDR’s attention (Geary County Health Department, 1999; Riley County Health Department, 1999). ATSDR initially identified general concerns about potential health hazards associated with the installation and with potential off-post migration of contaminants. ATSDR has addressed these concerns in the "Evaluation of Potential Exposure Pathways" section of this public health assessment. Individuals who would like more information on the activities and proposed remedial actions for specific areas of Fort Riley may review copies of site documents in the following repositories: Dorothy Bramlage Public Library (Junction City); Clay Center Carnegie Library; and Manhattan Public Library. A copy of the Administrative Record is also kept at Fort Riley at the Directorate of Environment and Safety (Fort Riley, 1995, 1997, 1999a).
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 Fort Riley as part of its Child Health Initiative. ATSDR identified no situations in which children are likely to be exposed to harmful levels of contaminants associated with Fort Riley.
ATSDR has attempted to identify populations of children at and in the vicinity of Fort Riley and any public health hazards threatening these children. Young children live and attend school at Fort Riley. ATSDR determined, however, that harmful exposures are unlikely to occur because children at Fort Riley cannot access areas of concern or locations of contamination at Fort Riley. Furthermore, ATSDR did not identify any harmful exposures associated with Fort Riley that are specific to children at nearby schools, residential areas, or recreational areas. Like other people living in the vicinity of/or at Fort Riley, children lived at the Colyer Manor Housing Area, where an isolated area of lead contamination was found, and they may have ingested drinking water contaminated with VOCs while at the auto speedway. Following a careful evaluation of these pathways as they relate to children, ATSDR determined that no harmful exposures have occurred in the past, nor are they likely to occur either now or in the future. These potential exposure pathways are discussed extensively in "Evaluation of Potential Exposure Pathways."
Next Section Table of Contents
