PUBLIC HEALTH ASSESSMENT
TYNDALL AIR FORCE BASE
PANAMA CITY, BAY COUNTY, FLORIDA
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONTAMINATION, EXPOSURE PATHWAYS, AND THE PUBLIC HEALTH IMPLICATIONS
Based on the results of our site visit and a review of the data and information currently available, ATSDR concludes that there are no past, current, or future exposure situations at TAFB that pose a public health hazard.ATSDR reached this conclusion by reviewing the IRP sites, solid waste management units, and other environmental data. From this review, we identified and evaluated four potential exposure situations as shown in Table 1: (1) exposure to DDT-contaminated fish in Fred Bayou; (2) exposure to lead in soils at the Tyndall Elementary School; (3) exposure to lead in tap water at 2451 Lincoln Drive in the Bay View Housing area; and (4) exposure to contaminated surface soils and soil gas at Wherry Landfill. Our overall public health conclusion is no apparent public health hazard. Details of these exposure situations are summarized in Table 2 and discussed in the following sections. Conclusion categories are explained in Appendix C.
Table 1. Summary of ATSDR's public health conclusions for Tyndall Air Force Base
| Exposure Situations | Conclusion Category |
| Exposure to DDT-contaminated fish in Fred Bayou (past, present, and future) | No Apparent Public Health Hazard |
| Exposure to lead in soils at the Tyndall Elementary School (past, present, and future) | |
| Past exposure to lead in tap water at 2451 Lincoln Drive, Bay View Housing | |
| Past exposure to contaminated surface soils or soil gas at Wherry Landfill | Indeterminate Public Health Hazard |
| Situation Name | Contaminants | Exposure Pathways Elements | Time | Comments | ||||
| Source | Environmental Media | Point of Exposure | Route of Exposure | Exposed Population | ||||
| Exposure to DDT Contaminated Fish in Fred Bayou | DDT, DDD, DDE | Sediment/ Terrestrial |
Fish | Consumption of fish caught in Fred Bayou | Ingestion | People consuming fish caught in Fred Bayou, 250 to 500 people per year. | Past, current, future | No Apparent Public Health Hazard |
| Exposure to Lead in Soils at the Tyndall Elementary School | Lead | Contaminated soil and lead pellets from former military training | Soil | School yard | Ingestion | Children, teachers, lawn care workers, parents (850 students enrolled per year with 50 to 75 teachers, administrators and other staff). | Past, current, future | No Apparent Public Health Hazard |
| Exposure to Lead in Tap Water | Lead | Water distribution system, plumbing | Water | Faucets | Ingestion | Military Family (estimated at four people) | Past | No Apparent Public Health Hazard |
| Wherry Landfill | Not known at this time | Wherry Landfill | Potentially soil and soil gas/indoor air | Potentially homes and fields at Bay View Housing | Potentially ingestion and inhalation | Residents at Bay View Housing | Past | Indeterminate Public Health Hazard, homes adjacent to the landfill are vacant awaiting demolition. Bay View Housing is scheduled for demolition by 2008 for area to become runway buffer. |
A. EXPOSURE TO DDT IN FRED BAYOU (NO APPARENT PUBLIC HEALTH HAZARD)
Summary
Eating DDT contaminated fish from Fred Bayou was determined to present no apparent public health hazard to recreational and subsistence consumers in the past, currently and in the future for two reasons: (1) concentrations of DDT, DDD, and DDE in the fish evaluated with expected exposure scenarios were below levels of concern; and (2) warning signs are posted in Fred Bayou discouraging people from consuming fish caught there.
1. Site Description and Background
Fred Bayou (also known as Shoal Point Bayou, Site No.OT029, or IRP Site 29) is a large tidal creek on the north side of TAFB (Figure 1). The bayou is approximately 3,750 feet long and 300 to 400 feet wide. The Bayou flows into East Bay at its northern end. East Bay is part of the St. Andrew Bay estuarine system that opens up to the Gulf of Mexico near Panama City, Florida. Two drainage ditches from the base flow into Fred Bayou at its southern end. The ditches drain portions of the flightline and the following areas:
IRP Site 5
6000 Area Landfill
IRP Site 14 POL Area A
IRP Site 16 Shell Bank Fire Training Area
IRP Site 36 6000 Area Construction Debris Landfill
Old Shell Pile/Old Pesticide Building
The discharge from the southwestern ditch is regulated under a discharge permit issued by EPA on January 26, 1977 (National Permit Discharge Elimination System [NPDES] No. F1003740). ATSDR found no permit violations since 1997 in EPA's database (EPA 1999).
Fred Bayou is used as a waterway for barges, tugboats, and small ships to access the base. The most common cargo transported in the bayou is bulk petroleum fuels and sand/gravel materials. Private boats also enter the bayou for recreation and fishing.
The investigations of Fred Bayou began with studies of sediment by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The Fish and Wildlife Service sampled and analyzed sediment from Fred Bayou in 1985 and 1990. Subsequently, TAFB completed studies in 1993, 1995, 1996, and 1997 that included the sampling and analysis of sediment, water, biota (fish and macroinvertebrates), subsurface soil, and groundwater along with an evaluation of human health risk (Rust 1993a; Rust 1996; Rust 1998). TAFB continues to investigate Fred Bayou to determine the source of contamination, identify and evaluate potential clean-up options, and to evaluate the ecological risk. The source of contamination has not been confirmed. The main contaminants are the pesticides DDT, DDD, and DDE. A summary of the water and sediment sampling is provided in Appendix C and discussed in the following sections. A summary of the biota sampling results is presented in Appendix D. A description of the chemicals is provided in Appendix E. The contaminated groundwater and subsurface soils are not discussed here because the contamination is below ground surface and in remote areas and in areas where public access is prohibited. Sediment data are discussed because of the potential bioaccumulation of contaminants from sediment to fish. TAFB is conducting additional sediment and biota sampling and analysis under a remedial investigation (RI). The RI will include a baseline risk assessment which is scheduled to be completed by October 2000.
a. Biota Sampling and Analysis
TAFB collected and analyzed fish from Fred Bayou three times, once each in 1994, 1995, and 1997. In 1994, gulf flounder fillets were analyzed for DDT, DDD, and DDE. In 1995, fillets of black drum, sheepshead, southern flounder, sand trout, and spotted sea trout and composites of hogchoker, pinfish, and blue crab were analyzed for DDT, DDD, and DDE. The highest concentrations of DDT, DDD, and DDE were detected in the same sand trout sample: 140 parts per billion (ppb) of DDT; 590 ppb of DDD; and 410 ppb of DDE.
In 1997, fillets of black drum, gulf flounder, sheepshead, silver seatrout, and spotted seatrout along with composite samples of longnose killifish, pinfish, sailfin mollys, tidewater silversides, and fiddler crabs were sampled and analyzed for 21 pesticides and 12 congeners of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). DDT, DDD, and DDE concentrations in these samples were lower than the 1995 samples. No other pesticides were detected. PCBs were also not detected.
For the purposes of this report, only those fish species typically consumed by humans are considered further. Therefore, longnose killifish, sailfin mollys, tidewater silversides, and fiddler crabs are not discussed further. The Public Health Risk Evaluation and Conclusions section discusses the risk from consumption of contaminated fish.
b. Sediment Sampling
For ATSDR's public health evaluation, it is preferable to have analysis of the chemical contaminants in the fish. However, the current analytical data set on fish includes only DDT, DDD, DDE, other pesticides, PCBs, and mercury. As an indirect indicator of other contaminants that might be in the fish, ATSDR evaluated sediment samples collected in Fred Bayou.
Sediment samples in Fred Bayou were collected six times. The first two sets of samples were collected by the Fish and Wildlife Service as part of a general environmental contaminants evaluation of the greater St. Andrew Bay. In 1985, the Fish and Wildlife Service analyzed the Fred Bayou sediments for DDE, DDD, DDT, PCBs, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and metals, including mercury. Five subsamples were collected and composited. DDT was measured at 4,600 g/kg, DDD at 1730 g/kg and DDE at 380 g/kg (dry weight basis, 5 samples, isomers 2,4' and 4,4' added together). Individual PAH compounds were also analyzed with the sum of the ten detected PAH compounds equal to 861 g/kg (dry weight). Total PCBs were reported at 3361 g/kg (dry weight).
In 1990, the Fish and Wildlife Service analyzed 28 additional samples from Fred Bayou for DDT, DDD, and DDE and found results similar to those found in the 1985 sampling.
As part of the DOD Installation Restoration Program, TAFB and its contractors sampled the sediments and water in Fred Bayou in 1992, 1995, 1996, and 1997. In 1992 and 1995, TAFB analyzed sediment for DDT, DDD, and DDE. The highest concentrations detected were 12,000 g/kg DDT, 2,600J g/kg DDD (J=estimated), and 1,100J g/kg DDE. Surface water was also sampled for DDT, DDD, and DDE in 1992 and these compounds were not detected above the detection limit of 0.1 g/L.
In 1996 and 1997, TAFB analyzed sediment for volatile organics, semivolatile organics, metals, pesticides, and PCBs. Again, DDT, DDD, and DDE were detected. In addition, carbon disulfide, chlordane, chloromethane, heptachlor, PAHs, phthalates, and metals were detected. Chloromethane was detected in 1 of 24 samples at 15 g/kg and carbon disulfide in 1 of 11 samples at 8.8 g/kg. The PAHs detected were benzo(a)pyrene (detected in 1 of 24 samples at 370 g/kg), fluoranthene (1 of 24 samples, 600 g/kg), penanthrene (1 of 24 samples, 390 g/kg), and pyrene (3/24 samples; maximum 1,400 g/kg; mean 917 g/kg). The phthalates detected were bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (3/24 samples, mean 90 g/kg) and diethylphthalate (1/24 samples, 340 g/kg). Chlordane and heptachlor were analyzed in the fish and therefore are not discussed here.
Compounds detected in the sediment would be a concern if they bioaccumulate and if they are detected in many locations above background concentrations. Chloromethane and carbon disulfide do not significantly bioaccumulate (Hazardous Substance Database 1999; ATSDR 1994). In the case of PAHs, they do bioaccumulate and could be a problem. Detection of PAHs, in predominately one sample (FBSED97-1, 1 of 24 samples collected in 1997) may indicate that PAH contamination is localized in one area. The public health implications of PAHs are discussed in the next section.
In the case of metals, TAFB analyzed sediment for 22 metals with 19 metals detected. Metals are naturally occurring in the environment and their presence is expected. To evaluate metals, we compared the concentration of sediments in the bayou to background samples. The background samples were collected by TAFB from locations approved by EPA. These locations are, Chatterson Bayou, Farmdale Bayou, Freshwater Bayou, Pearl Bayou, and Smack Bayou. The background concentrations are similar to the metal concentrations in Fred Bayou. Therefore, concentrations of metals detected are not a concern.
3. Public Health Implications and Conclusions
For the public health implications of exposure to contaminated fish, we reviewed three items of information:
The discussion of this data is in two parts. The first part discusses the fish tissue data and the Technical Memorandum. The second part discusses PAHs and sediment data.
a. Fish Tissue Data and the Human Health Risk Evaluation
The Technical Memorandum, Human Health Risk Evaluation (HHRE, RUST 1996) evaluated the human health risk from consumption of contaminated fish based on the 1994 and 1995 fish tissue data. In June 1997, ATSDR reviewed and commented on the HHRE and submitted comments to TAFB. Our review comments are discussed briefly here and presented in their entirety in Appendix F. In our review, we concurred with the assumptions and evaluation except for one item: the chemical compounds analyzed were limited to DDT, DDD, and DDE but the fish could have been contaminated with other chemicals. In June 1997, data on additional chemicals were collected with the additional collection and analysis of flounder, black drum, pinfish, sand trout, and spotted sea trout for compounds other than DDT, DDD, and DDE. Other non-game fish collected included silversides and fiddler crab. These fish were analyzed for 21 pesticides and 12 PCBs (analyzed as Aroclors). DDT, DDD, or DDE were the only pesticides detected. PCBs were not detected. The concentrations of the pesticides detected in these fish were similar or lower than concentrations in the samples collected in 1994 and 1995. This means that the results of the HHRE were still applicable because the three sampling events produced similar results.
Based on current scientific literature, levels of contaminants found in fish in Fred Bayou have not been shown to cause adverse health effects in children or adults. The HHRE evaluated the cancer risk and noncancer hazards from ingesting DDD, DDE, and DDT in black drum, gulf flounder, sheepshead, southern flounder, sand trout, and spotted sea trout. The assumptions used in the HHRE are summarized in Appendix G. The assumptions in the risk evaluation were very protective. Adult recreational fish consumers were assumed to ingest 50 g/day (children 6.2 g/day) of the same fish everyday for 30 years (6 years for children). The ingestion rates are approximately the 95th percentile for saltwater anglers in the gulf. This means that 95 % of the population ingests less fish per year. Even more protective is the assumption of eating the same species of fish for 30 years. This is very unlikely. The HHRE overestimates the exposures to be very protective of human health.
The risk calculations in the HHRE show that the cancer risks are within EPA's acceptable range of 1 in 1,000,000 to 1 in 10,000. For noncancer, the hazard indices were all well below 1.0 except for sand trout for a child and adult at subsistence ingestion rates (1.90 and 2.45, respectively) and an adult at recreational ingestion rates (1.22). The hazard index is the ratio of the calculated dose divided by the reference dose (RfD). When the calculated dose is above the reference dose, the hazard index is greater than one. For a hazard index of 1.9, the calculated dose is 1.9 times greater than the reference dose. Reference doses serve as a screening tool to help public health professionals determine where potential health effects may be of concern and where pertinent toxicologic information should be evaluated. When the calculated dose is above the reference dose, health effects are not necessarily likely but a cause for further investigation.
The reference dose is set below the lowest observed adverse effect level (LOAEL) or no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) to ensure safety. A LOAEL is the lowest dose at which an adverse health effect is seen in a particular study. These studies usually involve animal testing and human epidemiologic data. A NOAEL is the highest dose from which a study did not find any adverse health effects. For DDT, DDD, and DDE, the reference dose is set at a value 100 times below a NOAEL. The calculated doses for subsistence ingestion rates of fish from Fred Bayou fall 2.5 times above the reference dose but 40 times below the NOAEL.
ATSDR considered the reference dose, NOAEL, and the calculated dose in making a conclusion about the public health implications of contaminated fish in Fred Bayou. Although the calculated dose is above the reference dose, it is 40 times below the NOAEL. In addition, the calculated dose is based on very conservative consumption rates. More realistic consumption rates would reduce the calculated dose closer to or below the reference dose. Hence, ATSDR considers any past exposure not likely to result in any adverse health effects in children and adults.
The estimated calculated exposures overestimate the true exposure. To ensure additional safety for any current or future exposure, TAFB has posted warning signs in the bayou discouraging consumption of fish. The sign reads:
"This area is under evaluation for elevated levels of DDT. Frequent regular consumption of fish from this area is discouraged. Children, pregnant or nursing women, and the elderly may be at greater risk. For further information contact public affairs at 283-2983."
b. Polycyclic aromatic Hydrocarbons and Sediment Data
This section evaluates the polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) found in the sediment in Fred Bayou. PAHs bioaccumulate and hence could appear in fish. Because the fish tissue was not analyzed for PAHs, ATSDR evaluated the potential health risk based on the sediment analysis and the possible transport of PAHs from sediments to fish. This evaluation could be completed through transport modeling or through comparison to existing sediment concentrations that were determined acceptable. ATSDR took the latter approach.
For these acceptable concentrations (screening values), ATSDR used the publication "Developing Health-Based Sediment Quality Criteria for Cleanup Sites: A Case Study Report" (Washington State Department of Ecology, December 1997, Publication Number 97-114). This report developed Human Health Sediment Criteria for Puget Sound based on consumption of seafood using site-specific biota-sediment accumulation factors (BSAFs). Since site-specific BSAFs are not available for Fred Bayou, we used the BSAFs referenced in the report. The BSAF for PAHs was 0.38 which is reasonable for fish since the BSAF data gathered by the US Army Engineers for PAHs in oysters and clams averaged 0.34 (Army 1999).
The sediment screening values in the Washington State report are based on eating 42 grams/day of seafood with a cancer risk of 1 in a million and noncancer calculated dose less than the reference dose. For the sum of PAHs, the report used toxicity equivalency factors and calculated screening value was 330 g/kg, normalized to total organic carbon. In the case of sediment sample FBSED97-1 (the sample in Fred Bayou with the highest PAH concentration), the total toxicity equivalency factor for the sum of the individual PAHs is 435 g/kg. Normalizing this value to the total organic carbon.value of 49000 ppm (4.9% in sample FBSED97-1) results in total organic carbon normalized value of 88.9 g/kg. Normalizing the values is done because sediments with higher amounts of total organic carbons retain more organic contaminants with less contaminants available to the biota. This PAH value of 88.9 g/kg is 3.7 times lower than the ATSDR screening value and hence, not a public health concern.
One major assumption this comparison is based on is the representativeness of the one sample for PAH concentrations in the bayou. A more appropriate approach would be to take a weighted concentration of PAH values from the bayou, even though 22 sediment samples show no PAHs. However, ATSDR used the single highest value as a protective measure. Hence, ATSDR concludes that the PAHs in the sediment are not a health hazard.
c. Conclusion
Based on the evaluation of over-protective ingestion estimates of DDT, DDD, and DDE, the fact that warning signs are posted to discourage eating fish from Fred Bayou, and the relative low concentrations of PAHs as compared to screening values, ATSDR considers that the consumption of contaminated fish from the bayou in the past, present, or future poses no apparent public health hazard to recreational and subsistence consumers.
a. Actions Taken and Proposed
b. Recommendations
No additional actions are needed to protect public health.
B. EXPOSURE TO LEAD IN SOILS AT THE TYNDALL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL (NO APPARENT PUBLIC HEALTH HAZARD)
Summary
Lead pellets found in surface soil at Tyndall Elementary School do not present a public health hazard to children who attended school in the past, children currently attending the school, or children attending the school in the future. Overall, lead levels in samples collected in the school yard were low. The highest lead levels detected were from locations outside the fenced area or beside the gate to the front entrance on Highway 98. The lead levels in the playground areas are low and not likely to cause adverse health effects in children or adults.
1. Site Description and Background
The Tyndall Elementary School is located off U.S. Highway 98. Approximately 850 students from pre-kindergarten to fifth grade attend this school. About 90% of the students are from military families. The school and school grounds occupy approximately 20 acres; the property is fenced and a front gate leads to U.S. Highway 98. A second gate also leads to Highway 98. The playgrounds at the school are south and to the west of the school buildings and are within the fenced area.
The Army used the area currently occupied by the elementary school as a gunnery range in the 1940s. In May 1992, Tyndall Elementary School personnel and students found lead pellets in the soils of the school grounds. TAFB sampled the soils in the school yards on May 11 and 12, 1992, and concluded that the lead levels were not a public health concern. As explained in the following section, ATSDR concurs with this assessment.
TAFB sampled the Tyndall Elementary School grounds for lead in 1992. They collected 34 samples, 30 within the fenced area and 4 outside the fence. The concentrations ranged from 7.2 mg/kg to 20,000 mg/kg. The 20,000 mg/kg sample was taken from an area beside the front gate, a grass-covered area that is not part of the playground. It is unlikely that any children play in this area. The second highest concentration was 680 mg/kg. This sample was taken outside the rear fence in back of the building, an area unlikely to be visited by children. Children are very unlikely to be exposed to soil lead at these two areas. The third highest concentration, 340 mg/kg, was found in the southeastern corner of the school grounds, which is a part of the playground. The average concentration within the school yard, including 340 mg/kg but excluding the 20,000 mg/kg, 680 mg/kg values, and three other samples outside the fence is 97 mg/kg (±29.5 at the 95% confidence level, a range of 6.3 mg/kg to 340 mg/kg).
3. Public Health Implications and Conclusions
The average lead level found in the soil and the 95% upper confidence level are below the screening values of 400 mg/kg and 130 mg/kg (see the table below). The screening value of 400 mg/kg was devised by EPA Region 9 using an EPA Model (Integrated Exposure Uptake Biokinetic Model for Lead in Children-IEUBK, EPA 1998). The screening value of 130 mg/kg was devised by the state of California as reported by EPA (EPA 1998). The 400 mg/kg level has been considered acceptable by the State of Florida (Saranko et al 1999). Therefore, exposure to lead in soils at Tyndall Elementary school is not a public health hazard.
| Soil Sampling Results1 | |||
| Mean | 95% Upper Confidence level | Screening Values | |
| EPA | California | ||
| 97 mg/kg | 127 mg/kg | 400 mg/kg | 130 mg/kg |
1 Values exclude samples taken outside the perimeter fence of the school and the sample collected beside the main front gate.
The source of high lead levels detected beside the gate at the front entrance on Highway 98 could be from past automobile exhaust when lead was a common component in gasoline. This source however, would not account for some of the high levels outside the fence in the back of the school. Regardless of the source, the levels of lead in the soils accessible to children is not a public health hazard.
a. Actions Taken
TAFB responded readily to the identification of lead in the school yard by sampling the soils. After analyzing the results, TAFB concluded that no further action was needed.
b. Recommendations
ATSDR concurs with TAFB's conclusion that no further action is needed.
C. EXPOSURE TO LEAD IN TAP WATER AT 2451 LINCOLN DRIVE
IN THE BAY VIEW HOUSING AREA (NO APPARENT PUBLIC HEALTH HAZARD)
Summary
Exposure to lead in tap water at 2451 Lincoln Drive does not pose a public health hazard.
Although the base is in compliance with EPA's Lead and Copper Rule, ATSDR had concerns
that this home, tested at 60 g/L lead in 1992, would pose a health hazard for children or
pregnant women. However, subsequent sampling in 1997 resulted in levels below concern. In
addition, the Bay View Housing area is scheduled for close out and demolition in the next three
years.
1. Site Description and Background
In 1992, TAFB began sampling the tap water of houses at the base for lead and copper in accordance with EPA's Lead and Copper Rule. One house, at 2451 Lincoln Drive in the Bay View Housing area tested at 60 g/L lead in 1992. During our visit in January 1997, base records indicated that this house was not retested.
The Bay View houses were built in the late 1940s. These houses are scheduled for demolition in the year 2001 to 2002 timeframe for flight operations/resident safety constraints and modernization purposes. Drinking water to these houses and other housing on the base is supplied from the Bay County Water System.
Lead and copper in drinking water systems are regulated in a treatment technique which requires water systems to take tap water samples from sites with lead pipes, copper pipes with lead solder, or have lead service lines. EPA then requires the water to be treated when the samples exceed 1.3 mg/L for copper and 0.015 mg/L for lead in more than 10% of the houses. Bay County requires TAFB to sample the water supply at the home taps for lead and copper every three years in approximately 20 homes. The most recent sampling episode was in 1998. All results in 1998 were below the 1.3 mg/L for copper and 0.015 mg/L for lead indicating that water treatment was not necessary and that the water is safe (i.e., not a public health hazard).
The Lead and Copper Rule relies on statistical sampling and results for compliance. Municipalities can be in compliance when up to 10% of the samples have concentrations exceeding the action levels. Hence, TAFB, with one of 20 houses exceeding the action level in 1992, was in compliance with the Lead and Copper Rule after the results from this one home were reported. However, ATSDR had public health concerns because the house at 2451 Lincoln Drive exceeded the screening value for lead.
2. Site Investigations and Conclusions
Although the base was in compliance with EPA's Lead and Copper Rule, ATSDR reviewed lead and copper sampling records during our site visit and identified the house at 2451 Lincoln Drive that was found to have 60 g/L of lead in the tap water.
Lead levels above 15 g/L could pose a health hazard for children or pregnant women consistently drinking water with elevated levels over time. As a result of our recommendations for further sampling, the Bioenvironmental Engineering Flight resampled this location on January 31, 1997. The new data for lead and copper levels, shown below, are below concentrations of concern.
| Bathroom | Kitchen | Levels of Concern | |
| Lead |
<1 g/L
|
4 g/L
|
15 g/L
|
| Copper |
4 g/L
|
104 g/L
|
1,300 g/L
|
Subsequent to our recommendations and these sampling results, TAFB reported that a follow-up sample was collected at 2451 Lincoln Drive on February 10, 1993 with a lead level of 3 g/L (de Venoge 2000).
As a result, ATSDR concludes that there is no apparent public health hazard.
a. Actions Taken
In 1997, TAFB resampled the tap water of one house that had elevated lead concentrations in the 1992 sampling.
b. Recommendations
ATSDR recommends no further action since the current lead and copper concentrations are below levels of concern. There is no apparent public health hazard.
D. WHERRY LANDFILL
(INDETERMINATE PUBLIC HEALTH HAZARD)
Summary
The Wherry Landfill is located in the Bay View housing area (formerly called Wherry II housing). In 1998 and 1999, subsurface and surface soil and groundwater samples were taken from locations on top of and adjacent to the landfill. Low levels of pesticides were found in the soils. These soils do not pose a public health hazard. In addition to these samples, ATSDR recommends soil gas sampling and a report providing additional information about the landfill for evaluating potential exposure pathways for past public health hazards for people living in this neighborhood. ATSDR has classified Wherry Landfill as an indeterminate public health hazard at this time for past exposure. Potential current and future exposure have been reduced significantly and possibly eliminated (i.e. do not pose a hazard) because many of the houses adjacent to the landfill have been vacated awaiting demolition. The entire Bay View Housing area is scheduled for closure by 2008 because the area will be used as a natural buffer zone for the runway.
1. Site Description and Background
The Wherry Landfill is located in the Bay View Housing area on-base. The landfill was used from approximately 1943 until 1948. Figure 2 shows the location of the landfill area within the housing area. The Installation Restoration Program Records search states that the landfill was used for disposal of general refuse including mess hall wastes. The landfill consisted of trenches, one-half mile long and 3 to 4 feet deep (CH2M Hill, 1981). The Bay View Housing area was built in 1951 with 179 single-family, single-story houses. The houses are built on slabs and have 2 to 3 bedrooms. During the mid-1970s, 25 houses were removed because of foundations settling and cracking (CH2M Hill, 1981). The landfill may have contributed to the settling. The following houses were removed:
Addresses on Lincoln Drive
2421, 2423, 2425, 2427, 2429, 2430, 2431, 2432, 2433, 2434,
2435, 2436, 2437, 2438, 2439, 2441Addresses on Coolidge Avenue
2516, 2518, 2520, 2526, 2528Addresses on Monroe Avenue
2472, 2481Addresses on Taylor Avenue
2468, 2470
Figure 3 shows the housing area before removal of the 25 houses.
The closest currently existing house is 50 feet from the "perceived" boundary of the landfill; 9 houses are within 200 feet and 21 houses are within 400 feet.
TAFB has scheduled the entire housing area for closure by 2008, or sooner, if funding for replacement housing can be secured. As of February 2000, a demolition project was underway to remove all but 45 houses. The houses bordering the old landfill were scheduled for demolition during this project and have been vacated (de Venoge 2000 and Fugitt 2000).
2. Site Investigations and Conclusions
In 1998 and 1999, TAFB sampled surface soil, subsurface soil and groundwater at and beside the Wherry Landfill. This sampling does not provide ATSDR with sufficient information to rule out all exposure pathways.
In 1999, surface soil samples were also collected from the Bay View Housing area. Pesticides that exceeded screening values were detected in the surface soils. These screening values, however, are based on 30 years or more of exposure. Because the families living in these houses are serving tours of duty of approximately 3 years, the pesticides in the soils are not a public health hazard. Table 3 provides more detail on the sampling data, and Appendix H provides our comments on the sampling.
Groundwater samples exceeded screening values for metals, but this is not a public health hazard because the groundwater is not being used as a drinking water source. The landfill was not sampled for subsurface soil gases. Landfills may be a source of carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, methane, and volatile organic compounds. These gases could migrate through the subsurface to adjacent homes via undisturbed soils or through soils in disturbed areas such as utility lines.
a. Actions Taken
TAFB sampled the soil above and beside the landfill for volatile organics, semivolatile organics, pesticides, PCBs and metals. TAFB also sampled the soil in the Bay View Housing area.
Potential current and future exposure to the landfill has been reduced significantly because the homes adjacent to the landfill have been vacated and are scheduled for demolition.
b. Recommendations
Because of the sampling and analytical limitations, ATSDR recommends that TAFB complete the following to evaluate past potential exposure pathways at the Wherry Landfill.
ATSDR conducted interviews of local, state, and other federal government officials to identify any community health concerns. During these interviews, no community health concerns were brought to our attention.
If you have concerns you would like to relay to ATSDR, please direct them to the following address.
Program Evaluation, Records, and Information Services Branch
Re: Tyndall Air Force Base
ATSDR, Division of Health Assessment and Consultation
1600 Clifton Road, MSE-56
Atlanta, GA 30333
Questions may also be directed to Robert Safay, the ATSDR regional representative in Region 4, at 404-562-1782 or to the ATSDR information line at 888-42ATSDR or 888-422-8737. Please mention that you are calling about Tyndall Air Force Base.
Next Section Table of Contents
