Restoration Advisory Board (RAB)
Meeting Minutes

Minutes of the Fort Detrick
Restoration Advisory Board Meeting
September 17, 1998

  1. The meeting was convened at 7:30 p.m., Thursday, September 17, 1998 in Conference Room Three of the Goodloe E. Byron Building (810) at Fort Detrick.

    Members Present:

    Charles Billups, Ph.D., Community Member
    Mr. Norman M. Covert, Command Historian, Fort Detrick, RAB Administrator
    William R. Effland, Ph.D., Community Member
    Michael J. Gresalfi, Ph.D., Community Member
    Mr. Kelvin J. Kelkenberg, Community Member
    Colonel Albert E. Kinkead, Commander, Fort Detrick
    Mr. Thomas P. Meyer, Project Manager, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Baltimore District (USACE)
    Ms. Linda Robinson, Community Member
    Mr. Jon Sadler, Project Manager (incoming), U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Baltimore District (USACE)
    Mr. Douglas T. Scarborough, Project Oversight Manager, U.S. Army Environmental Center (USAEC)
    Lieutenant Colonel Alan Sheaffer, Command Advisor for Wellness and Environment, Fort Detrick, Installation Co-chairman
    Mr. Gerald P. Toomey, Community Co-chairman
    Craig R. Toussaint, Ph.D., Community Member
    Mr. Thomas Wade, Community Member
    Mr. Douglas T. Warnock, Installation Restoration Manager, Fort Detrick

    Members Absent:

    Mr. Larry Bohn, Frederick County Health Department, Community Member
    Ms. Helen Miller-Scott, Community Member
    Mr. Paul J. Offutt, Frederick County Health Department (Alternate), Community Member
    Mr. Dennis Orenshaw, Project Officer, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)

    Also Present:

    Ms. Michelle Brock, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Baltimore District, (USACE)
    Mr. John Fairbank, Maryland State Department of the Environment (MDE)
    Mr. Gilbert Gonzalez, Environmental Management Officer, Medical Command (MEDCOM), Fort Sam Houston
    Mr. Dave Iseri, ICF Kaiser (contractor)
    Mr. Dan Phelan, United States Geological Survey (USGS)
    Ms. Dorothy Tepper, United States Geological Survey (USGS)

  2. Lt. Col. Sheaffer opened the meeting with a reminder that tonight's meeting would include presentations from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and their contractor, Dave Iseri of ICF Kaiser, as well as an update from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). He then handed the floor to co-chair Gerry Toomey.

  3. Mr. Toomey introduced Stewart Taylor, Ph.D., as his nomination for membership to the RAB. He gave a brief description of Dr. Taylor's qualifications, then asked him to tell the RAB something about himself. Dr. Taylor said he had recently moved to Frederick from Gaithersburg and is building a home in Cloverhill III. He is employed by Bechtel and holds a Ph.D. in water resources. He has taught hydrogeology and worked on federal remedial programs with the Army, Navy and EPA Region IV Superfund programs and as oversight of contractors on the side of regulators. He is very familiar with karst geology and feels his background would be beneficial to the RAB. As a stakeholder, he is interested in becoming involved since he and his family have become members of the Frederick community. Mr. Toomey asked the RAB to vote on acceptance of Dr. Taylor later in tonight's meeting.

  4. Tom Meyer, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), gave an update of activities. He said the Corps is reorganizing and has named a new project manager. He introduced Jon Sadler as the Corps' replacement, but said he will still be involved with Fort Detrick at a less visible level. He said Mr. Sadler has worked with BRAC and has been working with Fort Detrick for the past five years to prepare the post for the closing of Fort Ritchie.

  5. Dorothy Tepper, United States Geological Survey (USGS), presented information of work being performed by USGS. Using slides, she showed the area of their study of the Robinson Spring located along Montevue Lane and the post boundary. She said they used a series of four profiles and two soundings, and saw some localized signals close to the base boundary. She explained the technique of resistivity to refresh the RAB's memory of their previous presentation, showing the group how electrodes are put out in a square pattern and currents are then sent in different patterns. They ran profiles and set up a square ten meters to a side, overlapping and rotating the squares for "cross-square analysis". She went on to explain Apparent Resistivity as using alpha, beta and gamma directions to look for anomolies, which are shown by spikes. Ms. Tepper explained Mean Geometric Resistivity as a technique that reduces the square array measurement to a single number, which shows significant anomalies. A Terran Conductivity Meter was used to see if there was interference from the pipeline, having some localized effect. Profiles were oriented at N35E. Summarization of profiles is for non-rotated and rotated. She said the Rotating Square Array uses six squares at a time, using geometric progression to rotate 15 degrees until 75 degrees is reached. The results, sounding 1, sounding 2 and sounding 3, are used to determine a fracture site direction. Using N75E as the emperical number, and knowing there was a fault at N77E in 1978, they think they are right on a fracture cited in a field report of a bedrock fissure during the 1930s. Twenty-eight meters is the deepest they can go with this technique. Using a block diagram of the fault, they believe this area is triastic sandstone and basal limestone. The preliminary conclusion is that N75E is the probable zone, dipping to the NW. Well BMW61 is most likely within basal limestone and within the zone of the N75E fault, based on anomolies. The implication is that the groundwater, and possible contaminate, is traveling along the fault. She ended her presentation by reminding the group the study has helped the USGS decide where to put in a well based on results obtained.

  6. Dave Iseri, ICF Kaiser, presented the RAB with an update on additional investigative work and new well installations. Mr. Iseri said they wanted to get as close to the Robinson Spring as possible for a new well, but still within the anomalies. He said they are considering doing another dye trace study, but probably not using a geophysical technique. He said there is a lot of turbulence in the wells. They have not done any core samplings, but have observed cuttings, which were coming up fine, showing movement in and out of the fracture area. He said they have drilled into limestone conglomorate at well 61, which is 60-80 feet in depth. At this point, Mr. Iseri gave the floor to Dan Phelan of USGS.

  7. Mr. Phelan said the USGS had installed a "water-level recorder" at the Robinson Spring to provide data to determine how water levels change and for initiation of VOC sampling. Data obtained will give readings on discharge of the spring in relation to the weather for low, average and high. Tritium levels are proposed to date the water. No tritium would be detected if the water is older than 30-40 years. He showed photos of the Robinson Spring with water coming in at several locations. Using a discharge pipe, they drained the Spring Box and put in a plate and water level gauge. Gauging the spring is more difficult because the wall is leaking; they have plugged it up but might have to put in a liner. The automatic sampler samples VOCs during changes in discharge, and provides periodic monitoring. Only stainless steel or teflon touches the water, which can not be aerated. The automated sampling technique is acceptable to EPA for sampling VOCs. The technique being used will determine how often to sample. The method is not inexpensive, but it can do duplicate samples. Mr. Iseri told the RAB that the electrician will be putting the electricity needed for the VOC sampler and continuous water level sampler into the Robinson residence next week.

  8. Mr. Iseri moved on to the RI/FS project status. Documents currently in production include the Area A RI Final, for which MDE comments have been received. The Final is to be issued in October 1998. The Area B Draft Final has been submitted to MDE and comments are pending. Final document is planned for March 1999. The Area A FS Draft Final is to be issued in October 1998, with the Final due July 1999. Area B FS is in preparation with the Draft expected in April 1999, and the Final in March 2000. Scheduled Final documents include: Area A Proposed Plan, July 2000; Area A Decision Document (DD), January 2001; Area B Proposed Plan (no-action sites), December 2000; Area B DD (no action sites), July 2001; Area B Proposed Plan (B-11 and groundwater), April 2001; and Area B DD (B-11 and groundwater), September 2001. He said the Army will issue a remedial action Decision Document (DD), which is the Army equivalent of a Record of Decision (ROD).

  9. Area B field investigation status and results were reviewed. Area B additional well installation includes two wells completed summer 1998, but private property wells have not been installed. Synoptic water level measurements were completed August 1998. New well and quarterly well sampling has been increased to a bimonthly schedule; the first quarter sampling was completed August 1998. Additional sampling of the Area B perimeter wells was scheduled for December 1998, April and August 1999, but has changed to a bimonthly schedule, with the next one planned for October 27. USGS tasks completed include weir installation and auto-sampler and flow measurements at the Robinson Spring.

  10. Field Investigation Results for summer 1998, Area B, include groundwater elevations similar to those of March 1997 levels, as indicated on the August 19, 1998 potentiometric map. TCE and PCE concentrations stayed the same or increased in previously contaminated wells. Other results included: dense nonaqueous phase liquid in Well 57D; boundary well 31D, not previously contaminated, showing elevated levels of TCE and PCE; new boundary Well 20D , residential wells 16 and 17, and new residential well on Bowers Lane, all clean; and new boundary Well 61, low levels of TCE (2.5 ppb). Resampled residential wells 11, 12, 13, 14, 15; there were no detects except Well 15, 1 ppb TCE. Robinson Spring had lower levels of PCE and TCE near or below MCL of 5 ppb. All residential wells were sampled at the tap. Mr. Fairbank questioned the use of "low flow" technique; Mr. Iseri said this had not been done yet, and although there are no plans to do so at this time, it remains a possibility for the boundary wells. He said purge water volumes would be a problem, and they are looking to sample without turbulence. He said a "micropurge", or slow purge, would be ideal. He added that the presense of vinyl chloride will be in the report. This can be best found using micropurge. Dr. Gresalfi said that perhaps the RAB can be used to make recommendations and provide technical support in determining techniques.

    Mr. Toomey questioned the cost factor involved for purging. He feels the time factor involved ultimately will increase the cost, whereas disposal can decrease costs. He pointed out that in the case of deep wells, holding tanks can make the procedure more costly. Dr. Gresalfi asked whether the RAB, as a board, could be provided with micropurging information. He said Aberdeen is using this procedure exclusively. Mr. Iseri said ICF Kaiser has some information on mircropurging and low flow and will have it available for the next RAB meeting. He feels this technique would not make a difference in some areas, but would in others. Mr. Iseri added that we also need to look at our objectives.

  11. Mr. Iseri moved to TCE data for Area B, using a graph of selected wells showing contamination is moving from west to east. He said some wells to the west went up 100 ppb. They are not seeing the high readings as they did last fall, which could be attributed to the heavy rains just prior to the spike at the Robinson Spring last year. He said they are gathering rainfall data from the last few years to correlate groundwater levels to see if high levels can be predicted, and controls and design systems set up to prevent occurance or determine when they will occur. PCE data for Area B indicates levels going down at the Robinson Spring, and selected upgradient wells having rising concentrations where concentrations were found before.

  12. Mr. Iseri returned the group to the RI/FS, going over private property well installations in Area B. He said owners were not responsive to the Army's proposal for right-of-entry and well installation at this time. Alternatives are being considered: 1) well right-of-way or in Shookstown Road; 2) additional groundwater monitoring on perimeter of Area B. Issues to be considered in installation of right-of way include: "trip wire" usage is virtually eliminated; it may cause damage to residential water quality or production; in could artificially move contaminates toward residences; right-of-way is not established and could be very narrow; utilities would need to be relocated and this would be very costly, about $20,000 per house; and the road could be blocked for several weeks. He reminded the RAB that re-sampling of residential wells 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16 turned up TCE in only well 15. Doug Warnock reminded the group that two of the residences in question on Shookstown Road have been hooked into city water, and a third is in the process at this time. He said wells can not be installed on the Krantz property without their approval. Dr. Gresalfi questioned whether the owner has mineral rights to their property. Water rights are not separable from land rights. Dr. Effland expressed his concern about the conduit of horizontal wells in the Shookstown Road area. Mr. Iseri told the RAB that the latest detections and flow have led the Army to reseach residential wells on Shookstown Road between Montevue Lane and Baughman's Lane, an area never tested. All of these residents are on city water. RAB administrators are now contacting these residents to determine whether any accessible wells remain on these properties, and whether they need to be looked at. He said they will increase residential well sampling where trip-wire wells would have gone. They will test 16 and 17 perimeter wells every other month, as well as wells 1, 11, 15, and 23, which were previously scheduled for quarterly testing, for one year, beginning in late October.

  13. Additional activities are being researched or planned for Area B. Included is taking out PVC from Well 57D and doing Packer Test for fractures to determine the zone yielding DNAPL, or the highest levels of PCE. There is less than one-half inch of DNAPL in the bottom of the well, which is probably coming from a fracture. They are afraid high concentrations of PCE will start to degrade the PVC. They will rip out the PCE and test the open bore fractures. If fractures are found, Mr. Fairbank said the hole could be plugged; it must be dissolved to get it out. There is a screen at 20 feet, and a casing will go in at some point. Dr. Effland asked whether they would use a down hole camera. It is felt that might or might not be helpful. Mr. Fairbank said he would highly encourage running a camera down. Other possible activities include: assessing hydraulic connection between Well 61 and the Robinson Spring; installation of additional monitoring wells on the eastern side of Area B; and possible sampling along Shookstown Road between Montevue and Baughman's Lane. Definite plans call for additional perimeter sampling of residental wells.

  14. Mr. Iseri presented the field investigation status, results and additional investigation of Area A from summer of 1998. Accomplishments were: six additional well installations; synoptic water level measurements and new well sampling completed in July; and sewer line investigation for other TCE sources. Results include: groundwater elevations within 5-feet of spring 1997 data; TCE in groundwater from new wells 19A, 19B, 20A, 20B, 22, all below 5 ppb; TCE in groundwater from Well 15A decreased from 11 ppb to 7.7 ppb. Sewer line investigation and other sources results include: main sewer jetted with 1,500 PSI water twice a year; main along Rosement Ave. always 75% full; ro record of TCE used in buildings 201, 243, 100, 263; and sump located in basement of building 263, with all others sealed in past. Additional investigation planned for sample sump in building 263. There was some low detection along the gate, Well cluster 20, at Rosemont Avenue, and readings were consistent with plume. Carroll Creek was tested in 1993 right across from the Rosement gate, but nothing was found. The RAB continued with a discussion of off-post contamination in the vicinity of Area A. Again touching on the sewer line investigation, virtually all floor drains along the boundary of Area A are sealed in all buildings except the laboratories.

  15. Doug Warnock took over the floor for his presentation on the new Army Guidance on Lead Based Paint, in regard to the water towers on Fort Detrick's Area A. Mr. Warnock gave the background of the water towers, telling the group there are three in Area A, referred to as N (north),S (south), and W (west), all painted with lead-based paint (LBP). Lead has appeared in the shallow soil surrounding the water towers as a result of natural weathering and normal maintenance including sandblasting and scraping. A CERCLA action for the lead-based paint removal is included in the RI. Mr. Warnock said screening levels (SL) for lead paint is 400 mg/kg for residential, and 1000 mg/kg for industrial. Findings for the RI are: North water tower exceeded residential and industrial SL; West exceeded residential SL; and South exceeded residential and industrial SL. Recommendations are to evaluate the remedial alternatives and present those in the Feasibility Study. The document used for guidance in lead-based paint is "Army Guidance for Lead-Based Paint Hazard Management During Transfer of Army Property", dated 14 Aug 1998, signed by M.G. Whaley, ACSIM. The Guidance takes into account residential vs. nonresidential and is applicable to BRAC sites and CERCLA. The Army's position on flaking lead-based paint from non-residential structures is that it is not considered a release or a CERCLA response. The Army and EPA are currently negotiating and Army guidance will be updated. The Guidance states that "MACOMs should not use CERCLA authority to investigate for or respond to lead-based paint that has chipped or flaked off the exterior of structures due to weathering or normal maintenance." Fort Detrick's plan is to remove water towers from RI/FS. Possible alternatives are to maintain vegetative cover; fence around water towers; remove or treat soil with elevated lead; and use phytoremediation. They also plan to request non-DERA funds from MEDCOM. In conclusion, Mr. Warnock told the RAB that the three water towers have lead based paint; there is currently a CERCLA action; the New Army Guidance is not CERCLA; Fort Detrick is removing the water towers from the RI/FS; and they are considering non-CERCLA alternatives. At this point, Mr. Fairbank, MDE, said if this action is removed from CERCLA, it will be put under Superfund. Lt. Col. Sheaffer feels it is safest to leave it in the RI/FS. They are ready to remove the soil, but the new Guidance is keeping us from taking action. Officers could be Court Marshalled if Guidance is not followed. Mr. Scarborough, AEC, added that at the moment, thse are written order and we must comply for now. Lt. Col. Sheaffer would prefer the matter be handled under CERCLA.

  16. Mr. Warnock then moved the discussion to the prioritization of projects for FY99 and the completion of city water connections on Shookstown Road; connection of Crum residence on Rocky Springs Road to Army water supply; remedial design of Building 568 groundwater treatment in Area A; remedial design for Trench B-11; continued RAB support by administrative contractor; Technical Assistance for Public Participation (TAPP) support; groundwater well survey; sentinel, or "trip-wire" wells; pilot study for remedial alternatives for Area A and Area B; and further definition of groundwater plumes in Area A and Area B. He stressed the list given to the RAB is not necessarily in the order of priorities but that the members should review and think about them. Lt. Col. Sheaffer added that the Crum residence should be done along with the maintenance wells. He said Mr. Crum had been told design is underway, but no money will be available until October. The new monitoring well put behind his house has caved in, and he is concerned contamination will affect him. He is currently on bottled water. Norman Covert and Ken Rice have spoken with Mr. Crum, but Shookstown Road has been eating up both time and money. Doug Warnock and/or Norm Covert and Ken Rice will go to speak with Mr. Crum within the next few days to bring him up-to-date on where things stand. Mr. Toomey questioned the pilot studies. It was explained under the CERCLA process, the FS can identify appropriate pilot studies prior to the design phase. Additional work by USGS will also come out of FY99.

  17. Mr. Toomey said there had been a lot of data shared at tonight's meeting. He asked community members to discuss the nomination of Stewart Taylor to the RAB. At this point, Dr. Taylor was asked to step outside while RAB members voted on his appointment to the RAB. Dr. Taylor was asked back in and announcement was made that he had been unanimously voted to the Board.

  18. It was agreed the next RAB meeting will take place on Thursday, November 19, 1998 at 7:30 p.m. in Conference Room Three of the Goodloe E. Byron Building (810).

  19. The meeting was adjourned at 10:20 p.m.

    Jeffery C. Springer
    Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army


    Albert E. Kinkead
    Colonel, U.S. Army

Site Helpers


Detrick TBL w/Coin

Customer Evaluation:

ICE Logo