Restoration Advisory Board (RAB)
Meeting Minutes

Minutes of the Fort Detrick
Restoration Advisory Board Meeting
September 22, 1999

  1. Attendance:

    The meeting was convened at 7:30 p.m., Wednesday, September 22, 1999 in Conference Room Three of the Goodloe E. Byron Building, Building 810, at Fort Detrick.

    Members Present:

    Col. James Greenwood, U.S. Army Garrison, Fort Detrick
    LTC Jeffery Springeeptemberr, P.E. Chief, Environment and Integrated Planning, Fort Detrick (Installation Co-Chair)
    Charles Billups, Ph.D., Community Member
    William Effland, Ph.D., Community Member
    Mr. Kelvin Kelkenberg, Community Member
    Ms. Linda Robinson, Community Member
    Stewart Taylor, Ph.D, P.E., Community Member
    Mr. Gerald P. Toomey, Community Co-chair
    Craig Toussaint, Ph.D., Community Member
    Mr. Douglas Scarborough, U.S. Army Environmental Center, Member
    Mr. Douglas Warnock, Installation Restoration Manager, Fort Detrick, Member

    Also Present:

    Dr. Robert J. York, U.S. Army Environmental Center
    Mr. Fred Boecher, U.S. Army Environmental Center
    Mr. John Fairbank, Maryland State Department of the Environment (MDE)
    Ms. Kim Gross, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Baltimore District (USACE)
    Mr. David Iseri, IT Corporation (contractor)
    Captain Chandani Latey, Legal Office, Fort Detrick
    Mr. Jon Kruft, Universe Technologies (UNITEC)
    Chuck Dasey, PAO, Fort Detrick

    Members Absent:

    Mr. Larry Bohn, Frederick County Department of Health
    Mr. Michael Gresalfi, Community Member
    Ms. Helen Miller-Scott, Community Member
    Mr. Thomas Wade, Community Member
    Mr. Thomas Meyer, Project Manager, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Baltimore District (USACE) Member
    Mr. Paul Offutt, Frederick County Health Department
    Mr. Dennis Orenshaw, Project Officer, USEPA

  2. Index of September 1999 RAB Meeting:

    The following is a listing of items addressed at the September 22, 1999 RAB meeting. Corresponding section numbers are indicated in the right column.

    Subject/Topic Section Number
    Opening and Introductions3
    NPL Listing/DERA Funding4
    COE Update5
    Water Connection Update6
    NEPA Legal Issues7
    Community Cochair8
    Action Items9
    Agenda for Next Meeting10
    Schedule Next Meeting/ Adjourn11
  3. Opening and Introductions

    Lt. Col. Springer welcomed everyone and introduced Colonel Greenwood, commander of the Fort Detrick Army Garrison. Lt. Col. Springer reported that in response to many questions from the previous meeting, he asked Dr. York, the Director of Restoration Programs at the U.S. Army Environmental Center, to discuss Army environmental restoration funds and NPL listing issue.

  4. NPL Listing/DERA Funding

    Dr. York told the RAB that the Army sees the restoration program as a team effort and wants the community to be involved. He said that everyone has a stake in this project. Dr. York went on to explain that the Installation, as an active site has a different set of goals than the BRAC. The Army's active sites restoration goals are to have remedies in place at:

    • 50 percent of the high relative risk sites by the end of FY 2002
    • 100 percent by the end of FY 2007, but will probably slip to 2009
    • 100 percent of medium risk sites by FY 2011
    • Completely finished by FY 2014

    The projected cost for all Army installations to complete this work is $6.5 billion. This comes from an annual Army budget of approximately $60 billion.

    Dr. Toussaint stated that the Department of Energy has an annual budget of $20 billion, of which $4.5 billion goes to environmental restoration. He stated that by comparison, the Army's restoration budget is paltry.

    Dr. York stated that $375 million of the Army environmental budget is for restoration; 2.3 percent to 2.6 percent of the Army budget is allocated for environmental matters. There is a relative risk associated with each site, based on contaminant hazards. The site is determined to be high, medium or low risk.

    Dr Taylor asked for an example of a high-risk site. Dr. York responded that the Twin Cities Army Ammunition Plant in Minnesota is a high-risk site. There is TCE in the groundwater, a contamination plume 7 miles long, and contamination of drinking water sources. Dr. York gave the criteria for determining a high-risk site:

    • The contamination is greater than 100 times the published standard
    • Probability of migration
    • Receptors involved-if the contaminant migrates but does not impact human population, then it may not qualify as a high-risk site.

    Mr. Toomey said that Fort Detrick mitigated the immediate risk by hooking people up to city water. Dr. Toussaint asked how far offsite the plume extends from Fort Detrick. Dr. York said they didn't know. He asked how they tracked the plume in Minneapolis. Dr. York explained that the sandy aquifer in the Minneapolis area makes groundwater flow prediction easier and wells were used to locate the plume. At Fort Detrick, the aquifer is karst, which makes it more difficult to track the waterflow. Efforts to establish a model for prediction of groundwater flow in a karst aquifer at an Army site in Alabama failed.

    Dr. Effland asked how Fort Detrick compares to Twin Cities. Mr. Warnock responded that Trench B11 at Area B is a high-risk site.

    Dr. York stated that the Army's Restoration Budget for FY2000 is $378 Million, with 70 percent of the funds going to the Army Materiel Command (AMC). He stated that the AMC has numerous sites with massive contamination resulting from armament production. The Army Medical Command will receive $7 million. Fort Detrick will receive most of the MEDCOM's restoration funds in FY 2000.

    Dr. Toussaint asked if Fort Detrick is a production site like the Army Materiel Command (AMC) facilities mentioned. Mr. Warnock said Fort Detrick, as a research facility, is more like an Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) site, (the Army's command for training soldiers).

    Lt. Col. Springer explained that the Army industrial sites manufactured ammunition and explosives on high volume production lines for World War II and the Korean War. Dr. York said some of these sites have massive, regional contamination problems. Dr. Toussaint pointed out that TCE was used at Fort Detrick, and asked if TRADOC sites use and dispose of TCE. Dr. York said they do, for cleaning weapons, but not in the large quantities associated with manufacturing at AMC sites. Doug Warnock explained that at Fort Detrick TCE was used as a refrigerant in a laboratory chiller in Bldg. 568.

    Dr. Toussaint asked about the ecological risks. Dr. York said if there was no groundwater contamination which endangers human health, then it is not considered to be a hazard.

    Dr. York stated that Maryland has 8 installations with active restoration sites. Aberdeen Proving Ground is the largest, with 234 open sites and $25-30 million annual restoration budget. Fort Detrick is the second highest with 15 open sites and $36 million cost to complete. Ft. Meade is third with 11 open sites and $5.6 million cost to complete. Dr. York stated that Fort Detrick will receive between $1 million and $11 million per year for restoration over the next several years.

    Dr. Toussaint asked how the cost to complete can be determined if the final restoration plan hasn't been determined. Dr. York said the cost to complete is estimated early in the process to estimate the Army's financial liability. Dr. Effland asked if it is a preliminary cost estimate. Dr. York responded that the estimate is refined as the work progresses. Dr. Effland asked for an explanation of open sites. Dr. York said open sites are those for which a remedy is not yet in place. Mr. Toomey asked if Fort Detrick's cost to complete is broken down in the RIFS. Mr. Warnock said that the cost to complete breakout is in the Installation Action Plan.

    Dr. York said that 38 Army sites are on the NPL, 28 of which are active sites. Dr. Toussaint asked if they have been scored by EPA. Dr. York responded that they may not have been scored. Fort Detrick hasn't been scored yet, and it may not be on the NPL even after the scoring. Mr. Fairbank added that it would have to score 28.5 to be on the NPL. Dr. York said that the Army follows CERCLA, regardless of the NPL listing. There is a risk-based assessment based on risk to human health and future land use. Dr. Taylor asked who makes the decision on future land use. The Army does on active sites, future use of BRAC sites is determined by the community. Dr. Toussaint asked if a site is listed, who is the regulator. Dr. York said that EPA is the regulator if it's an NPL site and the state is responsible if it's non-NPL. He stated that the NPL listing won't really matter, because Fort Detrick is already doing what is required under the NPL.

    Dr. Toussaint expressed concern that no information regarding environmental restoration at Fort Detrick has been forwarded to the EPA since1990, and much more information has been acquired since then. He said he was told that it was not provided because EPA did not request it.

    Dr. York stated that it is Army policy to share information. Dr. Toussaint said that an external regulator often causes an agency to do more than it would do if regulating itself. He said that if Fort Detrick was scored and listed on the NPL, then EPA would have the responsibility to ensure timely restoration. Dr. York said that human health risk assessment, based on contamination migration and receptors, drives the program. Dr. Toussaint recommended turning over all information to the EPA. Dr. Billups suggested that when the risk assessment is available, it should be sent to EPA. Mr. Fairbank concurred.

    Dr. Taylor asked if the Area B RIFS is done. Mr. Warnock said the RIFS is in preparation, and the risk assessment portion is being revised. Dr. Toussaint asked if Ben Mykijewycz of the U.S. EPA had been contacted regarding the EPA's plans for scoring Fort Detrick. Mr. Fairbank said that EPA had reorganized and Paul Leonard was the person to contact. Lt. Col. Springer said he would contact him later in the week. Dr. Effland asked if the risk assessment from RIFS was more valued than the HRS score. Mr. Fairbank said that it would be more valuable to complete human health risk assessment, and that only the state would be reviewing. Dr. Toussaint said that he would prefer if EPA reviewed as HRS.

  5. COE Update

    Mr. Iseri presented the COE update. He said that Area A was on schedule, but the schedule would slip for Area B. Dr. Taylor said that it was not an aggressive schedule. Dr. Effland added that the completion date for long term monitoring of Area A is 2021. Mr. Fairbank added that long term follow-up monitoring is part of the restoration process. Mr. Iseri added that the October 1999 completion date for the Draft Final RI would slip, which would cause the rest of the dates to slip, but that the final end date would be met. Kim Gross said that the document must meet its objectives, which is why the dates have slipped. Dr. Toussaint said that the schedule does need to be aggressive. Mr. Fairbank clarified that the phased approach takes more time. Dr. Toussaint asked what the incentive would be to accelerate the schedule. Mr. Fairbank responded that it wouldn't be on the NPL. Lt. Col. Springer added that the schedule should be more aggressive but that funding has been a problem. Increased restoration funds anticipated over the next several years should alleviate some of the funding issues. He added that it is not in anyone's best interest to postpone.

    Mr. Warnock mentioned that there was to be a partnering meeting. Lt. Col. Springer added that the partnering would expedite the schedule. Mr. Toomey asked if the six months between draft final and the final could be shortened. Kim Gross added that the partnering at Ft. Meade seems to help with schedules because there is a consensus, which eliminates delays. Mr. Toomey asked what impediments are in the way for partnering and completion. Mr. Fairbank explained the partnering process, in which there are two tiers. If Tier One doesn't reach agreement, the discussion is given to Tier Two to handle. Lt. Col. Springer added that an external facilitator is used until the group can facilitate itself.

    Mr. Iseri stated that there have been several changes made to the Risk Assessment for Area A. Area B perimeter sampling will be ready for the next meeting. Mr. Toomey asked if there is value in dye tracing. Mr. Iseri said there is, and it will show how far in Area B the Army needs to look for the potential receptors and risk and residential wells. Mr. Toomey asked if the residential wells were tested in the early dye trace. Mr. Iseri said they were.

    There was a brief discussion about the maximum contamination levels and their meaning. Dr. Effland asked if the wells had been sampled since the heavy rains. They have not. Dr. Toussaint asked if there were people on Shookstown Road who refused bottled water and sampling of the wells. Mr. Scarborough said that was not the case. It was added that wells for the new homes on Bowers Road would need to be sampled. Dr. Toussaint asked if the well samples are drawn from the tap. Mr. Fairbank said sampling from the tap is the best way to assess the exposure to people drinking the water. Mr. Scarborough said they would have to break the seal on the well to get a sample from the well, and it would not be representative. Lt. Col. Springer said he will look into which new homes have wells and need sampling.

  6. Water Connection Update

    Mr. Warnock presented an update on residential water connections. Along Shookstown Road, the Meadows and Langoski residences have been connected to city water. In addition, it is hoped that the O'Rear property will be hooked up by the week's end. The Crum property along Rocky Springs Road was hooked up to Army water this week.

  7. NEPA Legal Issues

    Cpt. Latey, a representative of the Installation Staff Judge Advocate, stated that if Fort Detrick is in compliance with CERCLA requirements, then it is also in compliance with NEPA. Dr. Toussaint asked what the public's participation would be. Mr. Fairbank said that a public notice and meeting would be required. Dr. Toussaint said that Fort Detrick never had a public meeting. Mr. Fairbank said that in 1992-93 there was a public safety issue put in front of the community. Cpt. Latey cited Army regulation 200-2, paragraph 2-2, sub-paragraph 8-B, as the source of Army policy on CERCLA and NEPA adherence. This is available on the web at the U.S. Army Publications Agency web site,

  8. Community Co-chair

    Mr. Toomey said that it is hard to draw consensus when so much information is presented, but that scheduling is the key issue. No new information is needed, everyone knows what needs to be done. Dr. Toussaint added that there has been frustration over the lack of action, which has been caused by lack of funds. Mr. Toomey said that the money would give more results. Mr. Billups said that vigilance is needed regarding the development of new homes in potentially impacted areas near Fort Detrick'a Area B. Dr. Toussaint asked how do we know that the wells aren't being used. Mr. Fairbanks explained the pumps are removed from the wells. Mr. Toomey requested the minutes be distributed in a more timely manner. Lt. Col. Springer said that he would e-mail the minutes in draft form so that the members would have input into the final minutes.

  9. Action Items

    • Lt. Col. Springer will contact the EPA.
    • Lt. Col. Springer will e-mail the minutes to Mr. Toomey.
    • Lt. Col. Springer will look into the wells and sampling on Shookstown Road, to ensure that they have all been sampled. The groundwater sampling map will be updated.
  10. Agenda for Next Meeting

    • Update on partnering
    • Discussion/assessment of human health risk.
  11. Schedule Next Meeting/ Adjourn

    The next meeting will be held on Wednesday December 8 at 7:30 p.m. The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m.

Reviewed by:
Jeffery C. Springer, P.E.
Lt. Col. U.S. Army
James R. Greenwood
Colonel, U.S. Army
Deputy Installation Commander

Site Helpers


Detrick TBL w/Coin

Customer Evaluation:

ICE Logo