Warning: strtotime(): It is not safe to rely on the system's timezone settings. You are *required* to use the date.timezone setting or the date_default_timezone_set() function. In case you used any of those methods and you are still getting this warning, you most likely misspelled the timezone identifier. We selected the timezone 'UTC' for now, but please set date.timezone to select your timezone. in /home/u3uwqdnezp5b/public_html/libraries/joomla/utilities/date.php on line 56
Warning: date(): It is not safe to rely on the system's timezone settings. You are *required* to use the date.timezone setting or the date_default_timezone_set() function. In case you used any of those methods and you are still getting this warning, you most likely misspelled the timezone identifier. We selected the timezone 'UTC' for now, but please set date.timezone to select your timezone. in /home/u3uwqdnezp5b/public_html/libraries/joomla/utilities/date.php on line 198
Potential Dioxin site and Cancer Cluster, along Shookstown Road, Kemp Road and Rocky Springs Road - the perimeter road of Area B, Fort Detrick, Frederick, Maryland.
Kristen Renee Foundation
c/o Randy White and Susan Funk
In Response to
NPL Listing Fort Detrick Area B April 2009
Site Assessment and Remedy Decisions Branch
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC 20460 Case Manager: ?
Mark W. Evans, Ph.D. Environmental Geologist
Site and Radiological Assessment Branch
Division of Health Assessment and Consultation
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
Maryland Department of the Environment
Chief HWP John Fairbank, Federal Facilities Division,
1800 Washington Boulvard, Baltimore, Maryland 21230 Phone: 410-537-3000
Frederick County Health Department
Barbara A. Brookmyer, M.D., Health Officer Frederick County Maryland
(?) Montevue Road, Frederick, Maryland (301) 600-1029; fax: (301) 600-3111
President and Professional Geologist #6173 AIPG
120 N Washington Street
Hammonton, NY 08037
Remedial Investigation Report - DRAFT
Potential Dioxin site and Cancer Cluster,
1.0 Introduction and Situation
- We (Tapash and the Kristen Renee Foundation) may have come across a potential Dioxin site and cancer cluster along the perimeter road around Fort Detrick in Frederick, Maryland.
- We have taken some soil and groundwater samples on behalf of the residents of Shookstown Road, Kemp Road and Rocky Springs Road - the perimeter Road around Area B - the landfill for Fort Detrick.
- We are testing them for PP+40, including Pesticides and Herbicides and also Dioxins
- We need to talk to an expert in Dioxins and Chemical Warfare Research
- We need to know what else to test for - other than Dioxins
The residents along Shookstown Road, Kemp Road and Rocky Springs Road are demanding a proper Remedial Investigation and Cleanup by USEPA/Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) of this NPL site, a Epidemiological Study by CDC that considers Dioxin exposure along with biological and chemical warfare agents and a revised Risk Assessment by ATSDR based on the following information:
- The USEPA designated Area B as an NPL site
- The proposed location is adjacent to Area B: a known repository of incinerator residue from the burning of waste from Fort Detrick including live vials of viruses, carcasses of test animals and Agent Orange. The investigation of Area B contents is on hold after vials of live viruses were found: see attached map.
- There is a cancer cluster of over 400 individuals: nearly every house along the surrounding perimeter roads to the Landfill and Test Area for Agent Orange as documented in the attached contact sheets.
- There is known groundwater contamination of Tetrachloroethylene and Trichloroethylene from this landfill: see attached data
- Burning pits that probably contained Agent Orange, Agent Purple and Agent Pink are documented on the Landfill. No Fate and Transport study has been completed: see attached testimony
- No conclusive Hydrogeologic Study has been completed of the Fate and Transport of landfill contaminants in this Karst geology under and surrounding the landfill.
- A Remedial Investigation has not been completed for Dioxin and isomers of dioxin and other biological agents including herbicides and pesticides developed by Fort Detrick.
- Fort Detrick has proved irresponsible, intractable and evasive in supplying lists of compounds in the landfill to the regulatory Agencies and the Public.
- The wrong list of analyses have been sampled and analyzed in the DoD remedial investigation that did not include Dioxin and Biochemical Warfare Agents. Dioxines should have been analyzed based on even a cursory Preliminary Assessment. Trichloroethylene and Tetrachloroethylene were used for the Risk Assessment - that concluded the risk from solvents in the groundwater is not significant.
- No assessment has been made of the Fallout from a Test “Stimulant Tower”’ in the field opposite the proposed development and existing development around: Agent Orange, Agent Pink and Agent Purple in the 1950s through 1970s see attached contact sheets and aerials
- A vapor intrusion assessment of existing buildings has not been completed
- The surface drainage for the area disappears through a sink holes in Area B where waste was dumped and appears downstream to flow through Downtown Frederick Maryland.
3.0 Site Location & Description
Area B is approximately 90-acre located in a farming area with individual homes along Shookstown Road, Kemp Road and Rocky Springs Road - the perimeter Road around Area B - the landfill for Fort Detrick and residential estates such as Coventry estates in an outlying district of Frederick, Maryland. Farmland and new residential complexes border the property to the west, east and south. Fort Detrick lies along the northern boundary of the property: See Figure 1-1
The property is open farmlands and wooded coppices characterized by low, rolling relief, sloping gently to the south and east downhill from the Catoctin Mountain. Small perennial streams flow down from the heavily wooded mountain to disappear into sink holes on site and reappear in springs that form an unnamed tributary present on site that flows easterly towards Carroll Creek.
Groundwater beneath the property occurs in fractured limestone bedrock and flows to the east. This portion of Frederick County is a groundwater use area, and nearly every residence in the area has a domestic water supply well.
3.3 Site Features
Site Topography, Drainage, Geology and Hydrology
Area B-3 Inactive is located in the north-central portion of Area B. A site map is presented with topographic contours as Figure 3-1. Area B is located to the south and east of the operating Fort Detrick landfill. Although the operating landfill includes access roads, drainage ditches, sediment basins, and other appurtenances covering a large area, the disposal portion of the active landfill is defined on Exhibit 3-1 by the location of its liner (yellow dashed line). Area B-3 Inactive consists of two separate areas which are physically separated from each other by an access road. There are two areas referred to as B-3 West and B-3 East. Elevations range from 376 to 404 ft above mean sea level, which represents a topographic high for all of Area B.
Demography and Land Use
Fort Detrick is located in Frederick County, Maryland. According to the U.S. Census Bureau (2000), the population of Frederick County in 2000 was 195,277. The Bureau estimated a population of 213,662 in 2003. Frederick County is Maryland’s largest county in size, with an area of 663 square miles. Approximately 65 percent of Frederick County’s land is used for agricultural purposes or is undeveloped. Currently, Area B of Fort Detrick is primarily used for farming, including the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases animal farm, but also contains an active RCRA landfill operating under Solid Waste Permit (MD Permit # 2005-WMF-0327). There are no residential areas within Area B. The area surrounding Area B consists of agricultural, residential, and small commercial and government areas (Figure 3-2). Future land use at Area B-3 is expected to be associated with the operating landfill.
The climate of Frederick County is moderately-humid temperate. The mean temperature is 53°F and the annual average humidity is 58 percent. The annual mean precipitation is 41 inches and is relatively evenly distributed throughout the year. This includes 24 inches of snowfall which typically melts quickly. The average growing season is 170 days. Prevailing winds are from the west-southwest with an average velocity of 7.4 miles per hour.
Surface Water Hydrology
Streams or wetlands lie within Area B. Surface water runoff follows topography and runs down from the Catoctin Mountain. There are artificially engineered storm water management ditches associated with the active landfill. The closest natural stream to Area B-3 is approximately 1,000 ft to the north (see Figure 3-3).
The Monocacy River is the major drainage feature of Frederick County and flows through the Frederick Valley and to the Potomac River. The Monocacy River is located east of Fort Detrick and the city of Frederick (see Figure 1-1). Carroll Creek is a tributary of the Monocacy River and courses east of Area B. The stream network in the Frederick Valley is structurally controlled, primarily by joints (Nutter, 1973).
The perennial and intermittent streams which surround Fort Detrick originate at the higher elevations of Catoctin Mountain and flow into the adjacent carbonate valley (Frederick Valley). These streams are major sources of recharge to the bedrock aquifer supplying drinking water to Frederick. The streams are commonly influent or losing streams, which lose considerable amounts of water within a mile of the mountain. Disappearing streams which discharge directly into sinkholes are present in Area B, such as Stream 1 (Figure 3-3). Carbonate terrains typically have a low density of perennial streams as a result of extensive underground drainage systems. Conversely, many of the streams in and around Area B are fed by springs, such as Streams 3 and 4. The USACE, Baltimore District, conducted a floodplain analysis and mapping to determine the 5-,10-, 25-, 50-, and 100-year flood elevations of Area B (USACE, 2004a). These floodplains are presented in Figure 3-4. The study determined that Carroll Creek, Stream 2, and Stream 4 are the primary streams that may produce flooding in Area B. Area B-3 does not lie within any of the identified floodplains.
A wetland delineation was performed by the USACE, Baltimore District, in March 2004 to investigate the freshwater wetlands and waterways at Area B (USACE, 2004c). The delineation precisely identified the limits of five wet meadows that total 6.65 acres and two ponds (0.15 and 0.36 acres) that were possible transitory features. In addition, it was determined that the wetlands drain into a perennial tributary of Carroll Creek that extends along the southern boundary of Area B. Figure 3-5 presents an overview of the wetland areas identified in Area B.
Geology - Regional Geology
Fort Detrick is located in the Piedmont physiographic province, characterized by gently rolling hills and stream valleys. The Piedmont province, together with the Blue Ridge, Valley and Ridge, and Allegheny Plateau provinces to the west make up the Appalachian Highlands division. Fort Detrick is situated in the Frederick Valley which is a north-south trending valley approximately 26 miles long and up to 6 miles wide. West of Fort Detrick is the Catoctin Mountain ridge that marks the edge of the Frederick Valley and the beginning of the Blue Ridge province.
Much of the Frederick Valley is underlain by the Frederick and Grove Limestones. Dissolution of the limestones has resulted in surface features and drainage systems common to karst topography. The dissolution of the limestones creates cavities within the rocks that become enlarged, progressively integrating subsurface voids. An extensive underground drainage system of voids develops which results in a poorly developed surface network of streams. Karst topography is irregular and is characterized by closed depressions or sinkholes, which form when voids develop very close to the ground surface, become unstable, and collapse. Sinkholes may develop along stream channels and capture or pirate the surface water. Such a stream is commonly referred to as a disappearing stream. Springs are also common features in karst topography.
The discussion of major structural features and geologic units in the vicinity of Fort Detrick is derived from the following references: Water Resources of Frederick County, Maryland, Duigon and Dine, 1987; Stratigraphy, Sedimentology and Cambro-Ordovician Paleogeography of the Frederick Valley, Maryland, Reinhardt, 1974; Hydrogeology of the Triassic Rocks of Maryland, Nutter, 1975; and, Hydrogeology of the Carbonate Rocks, Frederick and Hagerstown Valleys, Maryland, Nutter 1973. The major geologic features are discussed, beginning with Catoctin Mountain and progressing from west to east.
Catoctin Mountain lies west of Fort Detrick and is part of the Blue Ridge province. Catoctin Mountain is part of an overturned anticline known as the South Mountain Anticlinorium. Rocks of the South Mountain Anticlinorium are the oldest in the area and consist of Precambrian gneiss, phyllite, and metabasalt.
East of Catoctin Mountain is the Frederick syncline, commonly referred to as the Frederick Valley, which makes up the western portion of the Piedmont province. Rocks of the Frederick Valley consist of Cambrian/Ordovician carbonates. The majority of Fort Detrick and the town of Frederick are located on the limestones of this synclinal unit. The Piedmont province and the Blue Ridge province are separated by a Triassic border fault. Down-faulting along this border fault created a basin in which the Triassic sediments were deposited. Triassic sediments consist of conglomerates, sandstones, siltstones, and shales. After deposition of the Triassic sediments, igneous activity resulted in diabase intrusions within the basin. The Frederick Valley is bordered to the east by the Martic Line, which is the surface trace of a thrust fault along which the metasedimentary and metavolcanic rocks east of the Frederick Valley were thrust westward onto the carbonates. A portion of these metamorphic rocks and the Martic Line are covered by Triassic sediments. The dip of Triassic rocks in Carroll and Frederick Counties averages about 20° northwest but ranges from 5° to 40° (Nutter, 1975). The strike is generally northeast. There are three prominent joint sets in the Triassic rocks of the Frederick Valley:
- Strike joints, which parallel strike and are nearly vertically dipping, are the most prominent joint set.
- A joint set which strikes N 45° W and N 60° W and dips steeply to the east is somewhat less prominent than strike joints.
- A joint set which strikes east-west is least prominent
- These three joint sets are genetically related and are thought to be related to shearing.
- A fourth set of obscure joints trend north-south and parallel the Triassic diabase intrusions.
Area B Geology
Limestones and Dolomites of the Frederick Formation
Area B is underlain by fractured limestones and dolomites of the Frederick Formation in the southeastern portion of the site and by Triassic sedimentary units in the northern portion of the site. A generalized geologic map of units underlying Area B is presented as Figure 3-6.
Triassic New Oxford Formation
Area B lies within the Triassic New Oxford Formation, characterized by red, maroon, and gray sandstone, siltstone, and shale. The southern portion of Area B is underlain by limestones of the Frederick Formation, Rocky Springs Member. The Frederick Limestone has an approximate strike of N 35° E and dip of 50° SE in the vicinity of Area B. The Frederick Limestone found in Area B is characterized by a dark gray thin-bedded argillaceous limestone with numerous calcite-filled fractures. The lower portion of the Frederick Limestone consists of a dark gray to black shale. The limestone weathers to reddish-brown silty clay. This weathered limestone was observed in mud-filled fractures/voids during drilling and coring operations in Area B. Solution cavities were frequently encountered in the Frederick Limestone in Area B at depths ranging from 10-186 ft bgs. The solution cavities usually occurred in series of voids and ledges up to 87 ft in length. Sinkholes, disappearing streams, and springs are present in the southern portion of Area B.
The Cambrian Limestones are unconformably overlain by Triassic sediments in the northern portion of Area B. The Triassic New Oxford Formation consists of conglomerate, shale, sandstone, and siltstone units deposited by streams discharging into down-faulted basins from nearby uplands. The northern portion of Area B is primarily underlain by the conglomerate, but there is a small area of shales and sandstone/siltstone in the northwestern area. The Triassic sedimentary units are characteristically red or maroon in color. The conglomerate is a quartz-pebble conglomerate north of Frederick and a limestone-pebble conglomerate south of Frederick. In some areas, the limestone clasts are predominant, with little or no matrix material, and can be mistaken for the Frederick Limestone. This was observed in core intervals as thick as approximately 20 ft. Distinguishing features are the lack of bedding in the conglomerate and the massive nature of the Frederick Limestone. Solution cavities, up to 18 ft in length, have been encountered in the New Oxford Formation at depths ranging from 16-170 ft bgs.
The Triassic sedimentary units have an approximate strike of N 35° E and dip of 20° NW in the vicinity of Area B (Nutter, 1973). The Triassic conglomerates are interpreted to be alluvial fan deposits or fanglomerates. As a result of this depositional environment, the conglomerates are interpreted to not have true bedding strike and dip.
The time gap of the unconformity between the Triassic sedimentary units (approximate age 220 million years) and the Cambrian limestone (approximate age 520 million years) is approximately 300 million years. The approximate surface trace of the unconformity trends west to east across Area B. The unconformity is interpreted to be a zone of higher permeability, likely as a result of preferential seepage and flow of water along the Triassic/Cambrian contact. The surface trace of the unconformity has therefore been interpreted and mapped based on surface drainage features.
A contour map of the elevation of the top of the bedrock surface is presented in Figure 3-7. The depth to bedrock in Area B ranges from approximately 7-35 ft bgs. Bedrock is at the highest elevation in the area of the Triassic shale/sandstone/siltstone units in the northwestern portion of the site. This area also correlates with a high in topography. Bedrock is also at a high elevation in the western portion of Area B. The elevation of the bedrock surface decreases to the east and the surface itself becomes flatter. Soil boring logs at B-3 East indicate that weathered siltstone was generally observed at shallow depths between 3-12 ft bgs, with auger refusal at competent bedrock as shallow as 4 ft bgs (Appendix A). Some borings were completed at 17 ft without encountering bedrock.
Area B is located primarily in the Penn series soil, as shown in Figure 3-8. Penn Series soil are silt loam, loam or silty clay loam that forms in materials weathered from noncalcareous reddish shale, siltstone, and fine-grained sandstone, normally of Triassic age. This is consistent with soil boring logs that indicate that soils are comprised of primarily silt (Appendix A). The far western portion of the site is situated in a similar soil type—the Athol Series that forms in residuum weathered from Triassic conglomerate or breccia consisting of a red calcareous matrix containing fragments of limestone, shale, sandstone, and quartz.
Bedrock aquifers are the most important sources of groundwater in Frederick County. Overburden sediments are typically not important sources of groundwater, but serve to transmit surface water runoff to recharge the deeper aquifers. Groundwater in bedrock occurs in joints, faults, and bedding plane partings. In the limestone units, secondary porosity as a result of solutional enlargement of joints, faults, and bedding plane partings are important. In the Triassic shales, sandstones, and siltstones, bedding plane partings are more important in transmitting groundwater.
The majority of groundwater in Frederick County originates from the infiltration of local precipitation. Primary discharge zones are streams and springs. The Monocacy River is the major drainage feature of Frederick County and is likely a major groundwater discharge point. A number of perennially flowing springs are also present in Area B which also serve as groundwater discharge points.
Static water level measurements recorded during Area B periodic groundwater sampling events indicate that groundwater underlying Area B likely flows to the east-southeast towards the springs that drain into Carroll Creek, and ultimately, the Monocacy River. Figure 3-9 presents the Area B potentiometric surface and inferred groundwater flow directions.
A dye trace study was conducted in Area B in 1995 and is described in a data report (Aley,1997). The data produced during the dye trace study suggest that contaminants introduced into the upper portions of the aquifer (epikarst) in Area B would be preferentially discharged to an area located to the southeast of Area B. This area includes a privately owned complex of springs (Robinson’s Box and Rock Springs near Robinson’s Pond) and Carroll Creek. Based on estimated straight line travel rates for fluorescein and eosine dyes used in the dye trace study, it is estimated that groundwater flow ranges from 79-246 ft per day with a mean value of 151 ft per day.
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study, Area B-3 Inactive, Fort Detrick, August 2008 Final Document
Aerial photo from 1959 of the Aerial Tower for Testing Bio-warfare agents at Fort Detrick in this suburb of Frederick Maryland.
The semicircle of monitoring point around the central tower can be seen
Aerial photo from 2007 the community has grown up around the base. Figure 3.10
Well and Water Supply
There are over 500 individual wells registered wells in the area around Fort Detrick
– This is an environmental nightmare
- Individual wells surrounding a hazardous waste site and bio-warfare research station
See attached map: Figure 3.11
3.4 Site History
Camp Detrick (1943-56)
From 1943 through 1969, Fort Detrick served as the nation’s center for biological warfare research.
On 9 March 1943, the government purchased 154 acres (62 ha) encompassing the original 92 acres (37 ha) and re-christened the facility "Camp Detrick".
1943 The establishment of the U.S. Army Biological Warfare Laboratories (USBWL), responsible for pioneering research into bio-containment, decontamination, gaseous sterilization, and agent purification.
World War II and BW research (1943-45) - United States biological weapons program
During World War II, Camp Detrick and the USBWL became the site of intensive biological warfare (BW) research using various pathogens. Buildings and other facilities left from the old airfield — including the large hanger — provided the nucleus of support needed for the startup. The 92 acres (37 ha) of Detrick Field were also surrounded by extensive farmlands that became Area B – the testing and landfill area.
Area B has been the primary location of waste management activities for Fort Detrick. Area B was purchased in 1946 for use as a biological simulation testing area. This testing was conducted on an outdoor grid which is still evident in aerial photographs. This grid was pointed out by Kenneth Krantz whose family owned the neighboring farm.
Two areas within Area B were used to dispose of explosives by means of burning or detonation. Shirley Coblentz and Bill Krantz of Shookstown Road described burning pits that issued blue and purple smoke regularly in the 1960s and 70s. They would often see the pall of blue smoke billowing across the fields and through the rural neighborhood
Area B is also the location of several closed waste disposal sites which contain several unlined trenches or pits. Bill Krantz and Shirley Coblenz described drums being buried in the area B at night. Historical records indicate that the pits were not systematically numbered, their locations were not accurately documented, and that individual pits were used for a number of different purposes. Kenneth Krantz described these burning pits on a map along with trenches that spread through the 1950s and 1960 across the Area B opposite his house. These pits were reportedly used for disposal of incinerated biological waste, decontamination sludge, lab chemicals, autoclaved animal carcasses, and residual pesticides and herbicides after demilitarization. In addition, the following were discovered during a removal action for one of the disposal sites completed in June 2004: non-incinerated biological waste, medical waste (including live pathogens), preserved animal specimens, laboratory waste (bottles, compressed gas canisters lab equipment, etc.), and containerized solvents. Bill Krantz described the burial of two drums of tetrachloroethylene and trichloroethylene. The discovery of live pathogens in medical wastes at Area B-11 caused suspension of all intrusive work at other disposal sites.
Post-war years (1946-55)
There was a building on the base, Building 470 locally referred to as "Anthrax Tower".
Building 470 was a pilot plant for testing optimal fermentor and bacterial purification technologies. The information gained in this pilot plant shaped the fermentor technology that was ultimately used by the pharmaceutical industry to revolutionize production of antibiotics and other drugs. Building 470 was torn down in 2003 without any adverse effects on the demolition workers or the environment. The facility acquired the nickname "Fort Doom" while offensive biological warfare research was undertaken there. 5,000 bombs containing anthrax spores were produced at the base during World War II.
In 1946, the Army purchased an additional 147 acres (59 ha) from the Cole family and others to increase the size of the original "Area A" as well as 398 acres (161 ha) located west of Area A, but not contiguous to it, to provide a test area known as Area B. In 1952, another 502.76 acres (203.5 ha) were purchased between West 7th Street and Oppossumtown Pike to expand the permanent research and development facilities. Two workers at the base died from exposure to anthrax in the 1950s. Another also died in 1964 from viral encephalitis
1951 Ft Detrick sprayed herbicide along fence line and killed 25 cows instantly (Bill Krantz).
At that same time 8 cows belonging to Grace Cole died suddenly over a two-day period. The grass did not grow back for many years.
Cold War years (1956-89)
Camp Detrick was designated a permanent installation for peacetime biological research and development shortly after World War II, but that status was not confirmed until 1956, when the post became Fort Detrick. Its mandate was to continue its previous mission of biomedical research and its role as the world’s leading research campus for biological agents requiring specialty containment.
An incinerator was operating for Fort Detrick outside the present fence line where the Pizza Hut is now on Rosemont Avenue. The incinerator had a brick chimney 48 feet tall and periodically showered ash over the neighborhood, covering cars with a fine dust.
The most recent land acquisition for the Fort was a parcel of less than 3 acres (1.2 ha) along the Rosemont Avenue fence in 1962, completing the present 1,200 acres (490 ha).
November 11, 1969 Prohibition of the use of chemical and biological weapons
On Veterans Day, November 11, 1969, President Richard Nixon asked the Senate to ratify the 1925 Geneva Protocol prohibiting the use of chemical and biological weapons. Nixon assured Fort Detrick its research would continue. On November 25, 1969, Nixon made a statement outlawing offensive biological research in the United States.
Since that time any research done at Fort Detrick has been purely defensive in nature, focusing on diagnostics, preventives and treatments for BW infections. This research is undertaken by the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID) which transitioned from the previous U.S. Army Medical Unit (USAMU) and was re-named in 1969.
It appears after this Presidential proclamation tons of hazardous and biological and incinerator waste was the dumped in Area B. After the U.S. outlawed biological research for offensive operations, a decontamination and certification program was completed at Fort Detrick during 1970 and 1971. Decontamination procedures for the residual biological/chemical research materials included autoclave steam sterilization and incineration. Incineration ash was tilled into the soil in the northwest corner of Area B (Pit 13).
Area B--3 Inactive ((FTD 51)) - Remedial Investigation / Feasibility Study. By Shaw Environmental, Inc. August 2008
Many former laboratories and some land made available by the disestablishment of the offensive BW program were ultimately transferred to the U.S Department of Health and Human Services during the 1970s and later.
The National Cancer Research and Development Center (now the National Cancer Institute-Frederick) was established in 1971 on a 69-acre (28 ha) parcel in Area A ceded by the installation.
Post-Cold War (1990-present)
Area B-3 Inactive is a group of former waste disposal sites located in the north-central portion of Area B, adjacent to the operating landfill (B-3 Active). Area B-3 Inactive consists of two separate areas divided by an access road - See Aerial Photograph.
The area to the east of the access road is the older disposal area, believed to have been in
operation during the late 1950s or early 1960s. This area has been the subject of ongoing RI as part of Fort Detrick’s IRP. Wastes reportedly included metal and general debris, and possibly included decontaminated (sterilized)? materials from laboratories.
The area to the west of the access road is immediately adjacent to the operating landfill. Its northern border is essentially defined by the southern edge of the operating landfill liner. This area received waste during the 1970s and 1980s, during which time the U.S. and the State of Maryland enacted significant waste management laws and regulations. Waste disposal from September 17, 1983 to 1989, occurred under conditional authority granted by the Maryland Waste Management Administration. Capping of the area was addressed in the first permit granted September 22, 1989, and occurred in the early 1990s.
• November 15, 1990 – Construction of the lined landfill was completed over top of portions of the older landfill, and waste disposal transitioned from the unlined landfill to the lined landfill.
a cap was completed on the existing sanitary landfill Area B--3 Inactive ((FTD 51)) - Remedial Investigation / Feasibility Study. By Shaw Environmental, Inc. August 2008
The capped portion only represent 1/10 of Area B when there were disposal pits, burning pits and the spray tower.
NPL Listing - June 22 2008: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency proposed Frederick's Fort Detrick as a Superfund site, a move that would give that agency oversight of the U.S. Army's cleanup of chemical-laced groundwater. In the early 1990s groundwater samples found two toxins Trichloroethylene and Tetrachloroethylene in residential water wells.
The NPL, therefore, is primarily an informational and management tool. The identification of a site for
the NPL is intended primarily to guide EPA in determining which sites warrant further investigation to
assess the nature and extent of the human health and environmental risks associated with the site and to determine what CERCLA-financed remedial action(s), if any, may be appropriate. The NPL also serves to notify the public of sites EPA believes warrant further investigation. Finally, listing a site may, to the extent potentially responsible parties are identifiable at the time of listing, serve as notice to such parties that the Agency may initiate CERCLA-financed remedial action.
The Army has spent millions to clean up the site, but Maryland regulators have complained that they are moving too slowly. Maryland pressed the EPA to put the base on its Superfund list, saying this move could set a schedule for the cleanup and also provide answers to remaining questions about how far the contamination has spread.
The EPA and Maryland officials say that more research is needed.. One benefit of the Superfund designation, they said, would be that the Fort Detrick area would be thoroughly tested to determine how far the plume had spread. The key thing is, what [pollutants] are in the groundwater, and how far have they moved?" said John Reeder, an EPA official.
EPA to Propose Fort Detrick as Superfund Cleanup Site By David A. Fahrenthold
About 7,900 people work at Fort Detrick. The base is the largest employer in Frederick County and contributes more than $500 million into the local economy annually.
On April 9, 2009, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) added the Fort Detrick Area B Groundwater to the National Priorities List (NPL) based on tetrachloroethene (PCE) and trichloroethene (TCE) detections in off-site drinking water wells.
Cancer Cluster and Risk Assessment
but the cancer cluster: where nearly every house along Shookstown Road, Kemp Road and Rocky Springs Road has or had a cancer victims and the types and virulence of the cancers more match Agent Orange and Dioxin exposure.
The real problem is that the risk assessment by ATSDR has been based on these two chemicals Tetrachloroethylene and Trichloroethylene –and was dismissive of any significant risk.
The problems with groundwater were just one aspect of a widespread environmental problem at Fort Detrick, where the Army built and tested biological and chemical weapons in the 1950s and 1960s. After the Army began digging up sites in 2001, it unexpectedly found hazardous materials, everything from rats in formaldehyde to tiny vials of live bacteria.
Cancers in the area: See attached Map of 1/10 of 433 reported cancers on the three mile perimeter road: Shookstown Road, Kemp Road and Rocky Springs Road. Around Area B
Hazard Ranking System
The HRS is the principle mechanism EPA uses to place uncontrolled waste sites on the NPL. It is a
numerically based screening system that uses information from initial, limited investigations -- the
preliminary assessment and site inspection -- to assess the relative potential of sites to pose a threat to human health or the environment. HRS scores, however, do not determine the sequence in which EPA funds remedial response actions, because the information collected to develop HRS scores is not sufficient in itself to determine either the extent of contamination or the appropriate response for a particular site. Moreover, the sites with the highest scores do not necessarily come to the Agency's
attention first, so that addressing sites strictly on the basis of ranking would in some cases require
stopping work at sites where it was already underway. Thus, EPA relies on further, more detailed studies in the remedial investigation/feasibility study that typically follows listing. The HRS uses a structured value analysis approach to scoring sites. This approach assigns numerical values to factors that relate to or indicate risk, based on conditions at the site. The factors are grouped into three categories. Each category has a maximum value.
The categories are:
• Likelihood that a site has released or has the potential to release hazardous substances into the environment; Enforcement Confidential Do Not Cite or Quote v Fort Detrick Area B Ground Water NPL Listing Support Document April 2009
• Characteristics of the waste (toxicity and waste quantity); and
• people or sensitive environments (targets) affected by the release.
Under the HRS, four pathways can be scored for one or more threats as identified below:
• Ground Water Migration (Sgw) - drinking water
• Surface Water Migration (Ssw) - The following threats are evaluated for two separate migration components, overland/flood migration and ground water to surface water.
- drinking water
- human food chain
- sensitive environments
• Soil Exposure (Ss)
- resident population
- nearby population
- sensitive environments
• Air Migration (Sa)
- sensitive environments
After scores are calculated for one or more pathways according to prescribed guidelines, they are combined using the following root-mean-square equation to determine the overall site score
The original HRS score for the Fort Detrick Area B Ground Water site was 50.00. Based on the response to comments, the final scores for the Fort Detrick Area B Ground Water site remains unchanged:
Ground Water 100.00
Surface Water Not Scored
Soil Exposure Not Scored
Air Pathway Not Scored
HRS Score 50.00
Fort Detrick – US Government Tenant Organizations
Each branch of the U.S. military is represented among Fort Detrick’s 7,800 military, federal and contractor employees. Four cabinet level agencies are represented by activities on the garrison: The U.S. Department of Homeland Security, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and the U.S. Department of Defense. The offices and laboratories include the Agriculture Department's Foreign Disease and Weed Science Research Institute, the National Cancer Institute, the Naval Medical Logistics Command and the Telemedicine and Advanced Technology Research Center. Currently under construction is a biotechnology campus that will house civilian and military research centers including units of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), as well as USAMRIID.
Agent Orange Testing at Fort Detrick
Agent Orange was given its name from the color of the 55 U.S. gallon (210 litre) orange-striped barrels it was shipped in. It is a roughly 1:1 mixture of two phenoxyl herbicides in iso-octyl ester form, 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D) and 2,4,5-trichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4,5-T).
Internal memos from the companies that manufactured it reveal that at the time Agent Orange was sold to the U.S. government for use in Vietnam it was known that it contained a dioxin, 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzodioxin (TCDD), a by-product of the manufacture 2,4,5-T. The National Toxicology Program has classified TCDD to be a human carcinogen, frequently associated with soft-tissue sarcoma, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, Hodgkin's disease and chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). In a study by the Institute of Medicine, a link has been found between dioxin exposure and diabetes
Three studies have suggested an increase in the risk of acute myelogenous leukemia in the children of Vietnam veterans, which might be associated with exposure to Agent Orange. A variety of other conditions have been suggested to be linked to exposure, but studies have failed to confirm a link with these diseases.
Just 1 kilogram (2.2 lb) of TCDD was released in the Seveso disaster causing widespread effects on people and livestock.
Agent Orange: Herbicide Tests and Storage in the U.S.
Agent Orange and other herbicides used in Vietnam were tested or stored elsewhere, including many military bases in the United States including Fort Detrick. Below is information from the Department of Defense (DoD) on projects to test, dispose of, or store herbicides in the U.S.
Location: Camp Detrick, MD - Fields A, B, and C
Project Description: The experiments were directed mainly towards the investigation of plant inhibitors applied as sprays or to the soil in the solid form to be taken up by the roots.
Agents: 2,4,5-T, 2,4,5-T triethanolamine, tributylphosphate, ethyl 2,4-D, butyl 2,4,5-Ttriet 2,4-D
DoD Involvement: Yes
Location: Camp Detrick, MD - Fields C, D, and E
Project Description: The experiments were directed mainly towards the investigation of plant inhibitors applied as sprays or to the soil in the solid form to be taken up by the roots.
Agents: 2,4,5-T, isopropyl phenol carbamate, LN-2426, 2,4-D
DoD Involvement: Yes
Location: Camp Detrick, MD - Fields C, D, and E
Project Description: The experiments were directed mainly towards the investigation of plant inhibitors applied as sprays or to the soil in the solid form to be taken up by the roots. Experiments were done by Ennis, DeRose, Newman, Williamson, DeRigo, and Thomas.
Agents: Trichloroethylene, 2,4,5-T, carbamates
DoD Involvement: Yes
Location: Camp Detrick, MD - Fields A, B, D, and E
Project Description: The experiments were directed mainly towards the investigation of plant inhibitors applied as sprays or to the soil in the solid form to be taken up by the roots. Experiments were done by Ennis, DeRose, Acker, Newman, Williamson, and Zimmerly.
Agents: 2464, butyl 2,4-D, 974, butyl 2,4,5-T, q:q 143 and 974
DoD Involvement: Yes
Location: Camp Detrick, MD - Field F
Project Description: The experiments were directed mainly towards the investigation of plant inhibitors applied as sprays or to the soil in the solid form to be taken up by the roots. Experiments were done by Acker, DeRose, McLane, Newman, Williamson, Baker, Dean, Johnson, Taylor, Walker, and Zimmerly.
Agents: 2464, carbamate, butyl 2,4-D, 143 and 974 (orange?),2,4,5-T, 2,4-D, Orange
DoD Involvement: Yes
Location: Area B, Camp Detrick, MD
Dates: Spring/Summer 1953
Project Description: Personnel at Camp Detrick tested the feasibility of using an experimental spray tower for applying a mixture of chemical anticrop agents to broad-leaf crops.
Agents: 3:1 mixture 2, 4-D and 2, 4, 5-T
DoD Involvement: Yes
Location: Fort Detrick, MD; Fort Ritchie, MD
Project Description: In 1956 And 1957, defoliation and desiccation were carried out at Fort Detrick and Fort Ritchie, Maryland by the Chemical Corps and Biological Warfare Research. These were bench tests.
Agents: Various, 577 compounds
DoD Involvement: Yes
Location: Fort Detrick, MD
Dates: 8/1961 - 6/1963
Project Description: From 8/1961 to 6/1963, compounds were spray-tested in the greenhouse to evaluate them as effective defoliants, desiccants, and herbicides.
Agents: 1410 compounds
DoD Involvement: Yes
The History of the US Department of Defense Programs for the Testing, Evaluation, and Storage of Tactical Herbicides," Submitted by Alvin L. Young, Ph. D., for Under Secretary of Defense William Van Houten listed Agent Orange test sites
From interviews with Kenneth Krantz, Bill Krantz (local farmer) and Shirley Coblentz – neighbors on Shookstown Road and Kemp: They estimate the spray (stimulant Tower of Agent Orange to be 300 - 400 yards from the Coventry Road Residential Estate and Lake Coventry where Kristen and family grew up - That would be well within the air pollution plume/impact zone for the open burning of pesticides/herbicides and the release of Agent Orange/Purple from such a tower – in my professional opinion (John Bee)
Serratia marcescens are gram-negative bacteria that were often used by the U.S. military and others to track movement of bacteria in the environment. As part of ongoing construction at Fort Detrick, Maryland, what appeared to be a small bomblet was found buried in the ground at the site of an old test grid. A sample of a clear, straw-colored liquid was aseptically removed from the plastic reservoir; the results of routine cultures on standard bacteriological media were negative. DNA was extracted from the sample and found to be 99% identical to S. marcescens. These results demonstrate the ability to identify the contents of a biological munition that had been buried for approximately 50 years. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17803079. One such canister fell on Ed Krantz house
Molecular identification of the bio-warfare simulant Serratia marcescens from a 50-year-old munition buried at Fort Detrick, Maryland. Whitehouse CA, Baldwin C, Wasieloski L, Kondig J, Scherer J. Diagnostic Systems Division, U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases, Fort Detrick, Frederick, MD 21702, USA
4.0 Field Work
6.0 Contaminant Fate and Transport – Risk Assessment
6.1 Toxicology; Tetrachloroethylene v Dioxin - Based on present evidence
Tetrachloroethylene does not cause the range of cancers seen around Area B in Frederick
Tetrachloroethylene generally causes cancers of the kidneys and liver
Agent Orange however has been implicated in many different forms of cancer.
It appears to destroy the immune system - Cancer of the bronchus, Cancer of the larynx, Cancer of the lung, Cancer of the trachea, Prostate cancer, Hodgkin disease, Non-Hodgkin lymphoma, Multiple myeloma, Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia, Soft-tissue sarcoma, Adult fibrosarcoma
How can tetrachloroethylene affect my health?
High concentrations of tetrachloroethylene (particularly in closed, poorly ventilated areas) can cause dizziness, headache, sleepiness, confusion, nausea, difficulty in speaking and walking, unconsciousness, and death.
Irritation may result from repeated or extended skin contact with it. These symptoms occur almost entirely in work (or hobby) environments when people have been accidentally exposed to high concentrations or have intentionally used tetrachloroethylene to get a "high."
In industry, most workers are exposed to levels lower than those causing obvious nervous system effects. The health effects of breathing in air or drinking water with low levels of tetrachloroethylene are not known.
Results from some studies suggest that women who work in dry cleaning industries where exposures to tetrachloroethylene can be quite high may have more menstrual problems and spontaneous abortions than women who are not exposed. However, it is not known if tetrachloroethylene was responsible for these problems because other possible causes were not considered.
Results of animal studies, conducted with amounts much higher than those that most people are exposed to, show that tetrachloroethylene can cause liver and kidney damage. Exposure to very high levels of tetrachloroethylene can be toxic to the unborn pups of pregnant rats and mice. Changes in behavior were observed in the offspring of rats that breathed high levels of the chemical while they were pregnant.
How likely is tetrachloroethylene to cause cancer?
The Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) has determined that tetrachloroethylene may reasonably be anticipated to be a carcinogen. Tetrachloroethylene has been shown to cause liver tumors in mice and kidney tumors in male rats.
Agent Orange however has been implicated in many different forms of cancer
How can CDDs (Dioxins) affect my health?
Several studies of workers exposed to high levels (more than 50 times higher than background levels) of 2,3,7,8-TCDD suggest that exposure to 2,3,7,8-TCDD may increase the risk of cancer in people.
The Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) has determined that it is reasonable to expect that 2,3,7,8-TCDD may cause cancer. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has determined that 2,3,7,8-TCDD can cause cancer in people, but that it is not possible to classify other CDDs as to their carcinogenicity to humans. The EPA has determined that 2,3,7,8-TCDD is a possible human carcinogen when considered alone and a probable human carcinogen when considered in association with phenoxy herbicides and/or chlorophenols. The EPA has determined also that a mixture of CDDs with six chlorine atoms (4 of the 6 chlorine atoms at the 2, 3, 7, and 8 positions) is a probable human carcinogen.
Agent Orange and Cancer
About 3 million Americans served in the armed forces in Vietnam during the 1960s and early 1970s, the time of the Vietnam War. During that time, the military used large amounts of mixtures known as defoliants, which were chemicals that caused the leaves to fall off plants. One of these defoliants was Agent Orange, and some troops were exposed to it. Many years later, questions remain about the lasting health effects of those exposures, including increases in cancer risk.
This article offers a brief overview of the link between Agent Orange and cancer. It does not offer a complete review of all evidence -- it is meant to be a brief summary. It also includes some information on benefits for which Vietnam veterans exposed to Agent Orange may be eligible.
Some background on Agent Orange
During the Vietnam War, US military forces sprayed millions of gallons of herbicides (plant-killing chemicals) on lands in Vietnam and Laos to remove forest cover, destroy crops, and clear vegetation from the perimeters of US bases. This effort, known as Operation Ranch Hand, lasted from 1962 to 1971.
Different mixes of herbicides were used, but most were mixtures of 2 chemicals that were phenoxy herbicides:
• 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D)
• 2,4,5-trichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4,5-T)
Each mixture was shipped in a chemical drum marked with an identifying colored stripe. The most widely used mixture contained equal parts 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T. Because this herbicide came in drums with orange stripes, it was called Agent Orange. Today, Agent Orange is used to refer generally to all the phenoxy herbicides sprayed at the time. (Other types of herbicides were also used, including cacodylic acid and picloram.)
The 2,4,5-T in Agent Orange was contaminated with small amounts of dioxins, which were created unintentionally during the manufacturing process. Dioxins are a family of about 75 related chemicals. They can be formed during the making of paper and in some other industrial processes. The main dioxin in Agent Orange, 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin, or TCDD, is one of the most toxic.
After a study in 1970 found that 2,4,5-T could cause birth defects in lab animals, the use of 2,4,5-T in Vietnam was stopped. A year later, all military herbicide use in Vietnam ended. During the 1970s, veterans returning from Vietnam began to report skin rashes, cancer, psychological symptoms, birth defects and handicaps in their children, and other health problems. Some veterans were concerned that Agent Orange exposure might have contributed to these problems. These concerns eventually led to a series of scientific studies, health care programs, and compensation programs directed to the exposed veterans.
A large class-action lawsuit was filed in 1979 against the herbicide manufacturers, and was settled out of court in 1984. It resulted in the Agent Orange Settlement Fund, which distributed nearly $200 million to veterans between 1988 and 1996.
Although there is now quite a bit of evidence about the health effects of Agent Orange, many questions have not yet been answered.
How were people exposed to Agent Orange?
About 3 million people served in the US military in Vietnam during the course of the war, about 1.5 million of whom served during the period of heaviest herbicide spraying from 1967 to 1969.
In studies comparing Vietnam veterans with veterans who had served at the same time elsewhere, TCDD (dioxin) levels were found to be higher among those who had served in Vietnam, although these levels went down slowly over time.
Exposure to Agent Orange varied a great deal. Most of the large-scale spraying operations in Operation Ranch Hand were done with airplanes and helicopters. However, some herbicides were sprayed from boats or trucks, and some were applied by soldiers with backpack sprayers. Those who loaded airplanes and helicopters may have been exposed the most. Members of the Army Chemical Corps, who stored and mixed herbicides and defoliated the perimeters of military bases, probably also had some of the heaviest exposures. Others with potentially heavy exposures included members of Special Forces units who defoliated remote campsites, and members of Navy river units who cleared base perimeters.
Exposures could have occurred through breathing the chemicals in, ingesting them in contaminated food or drink, or absorbing them through the skin. Other exposure pathways may have been possible as well, such as through the eyes or through breaks in the skin.
One of the challenges in assessing the health effects of Agent Orange exposure has been determining how much any individual veteran was exposed to (or even what they were exposed to), as there is very little information of this type available.
Does Agent Orange cause cancer?
Researchers use 2 main types of studies to try to determine if a substance or exposure causes cancer. One type of study looks at cancer rates in different groups of people. Such a study might compare the cancer rate in a group exposed to a substance versus the rate in a group not exposed to it, or compare it to what the expected cancer rate would be in the general population. But studies of people can sometimes be hard to interpret, because there may be factors affecting the results that are hard to account for. In studies in lab animals, other factors are easier to control for, but it's not always clear if the results in animals would be the same in humans. In most cases neither type of study provides definitive evidence on its own, so researchers usually look at both human and lab-based studies.
Studies in people
Studies of Vietnam veterans potentially provide the most direct evidence of the health effects of Agent Orange exposure. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the US Air Force, and the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) have conducted studies involving thousands of Vietnam veterans. However, most of these studies have been limited by the fairly small number of people who were highly exposed to Agent Orange. About a dozen states have also conducted studies of their veterans, some of which have yielded cancer risk information. A series of studies of Australian Vietnam veterans has also provided some information on cancer risk. Because of the limits of the Vietnam veteran studies, studies of 3 other groups have provided important information on the potential cancer-causing properties of Agent Orange exposure:
•Vietnamese soldiers and civilians exposed to the same herbicides as United States service personnel, often for more prolonged periods (although there have been few thorough health studies in these populations)
•Workers exposed to herbicides in other settings, such as herbicide manufacturing workers, herbicide applicators, farmers, lumberjacks, and forest and soil conservationists, who often had much higher blood dioxin levels than Vietnam veterans
•People exposed to dioxins after industrial accidents in Germany, Seveso (Italy), and California, and after chronic exposures at work and in the environment
Each of these groups differs from the Vietnam veterans in the characteristics of the people exposed, the nature of the dioxin exposures, and other factors such as diet and other chemical exposures.
Taken together, these studies have looked at possible links between Agent Orange (or dioxin) and a number of cancer types.
Soft tissue sarcoma: Studies of Vietnam veterans have not found an increase in soft tissue sarcomas. However, soft tissue sarcomas have been linked to phenoxy herbicide exposure in a series of studies in Sweden and in some studies of industrially exposed workers. Many studies of farmers and agricultural workers show an increase in soft tissue sarcomas, which may relate to herbicide exposure. Soft tissue sarcomas have also been linked to dioxin exposure in some chemical manufacturing workers and in some other workplace studies.
Non-Hodgkin lymphoma: Most studies of Vietnam veterans have not shown an increase in non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL). But several studies have found a link between phenoxy herbicide exposure (usually on the job) and NHL. Some studies of farmers and agricultural workers also suggest this association, although not all studies have found such a link.
Hodgkin disease: Studies of Vietnam veterans have not found an increase in Hodgkin disease. However, Hodgkin disease has been linked to phenoxy herbicide exposure in some other studies. Many studies of farmers and agricultural workers show an increase in Hodgkin disease, which may relate to herbicide exposure.
The link between Hodgkin disease and dioxin exposure specifically is less clear, as studies have given mixed results.
Lung and other respiratory cancers: Most studies of Vietnam veterans have not shown an increase in respiratory cancers, such as those of the lung, trachea (windpipe), and larynx (voice box). Most studies of people exposed to herbicides at work, such as herbicide manufacturing workers, herbicide applicators, and farmers have not found an excess risk of lung cancer.
Most studies of groups of people highly exposed to dioxin after industrial accidents have not found an increase in respiratory cancers. However, chronic workplace exposures to dioxin have been linked with increased risk of respiratory cancers among those with high exposures.
Prostate cancer: Most studies of Vietnam veterans have not found an excess risk of prostate cancer, but results from a few studies have suggested a possible link.
Studies of other groups have also yielded mixed results. Most studies of people exposed to phenoxy herbicides at work do not show an excess of prostate cancer. However, some studies have found a small excess risk of prostate cancer related to dioxin exposure.
Multiple myeloma: Studies of Vietnam veterans have had too few cases of multiple myeloma (a type of immune system cancer that affects the bones) to be helpful in determining if there is a risk.
However, other studies of people exposed to pesticides, herbicides, and/or dioxins have suggested a possible link. Several studies of farmers and agricultural workers have reported a small increase in risk of multiple myeloma, although other studies show no excess risk.
Acute myelogenous leukemia (AML) in the children of veterans: At least 3 studies have pointed to possible link between a father's exposure to Agent Orange or other herbicides and acute myeloid leukemia (AML) in his children.
Gastrointestinal (GI) cancer: Cancers of the GI system -- esophagus, stomach, pancreas, colon, and rectum -- have been extensively studied in Vietnam veterans, groups with herbicide exposure in the workplace, and people exposed to dioxins. These studies have not found a link between these exposures and any GI cancer.
Brain cancer: Studies have not found a link between Vietnam service, workplace herbicide exposure, or dioxin exposure, and brain cancer.
Other cancers: Few studies have looked at a possible link between Agent Orange exposure and other cancers, including cancers of the nose and nasopharynx (upper part of the throat), breast, cervix, endometrium (uterus), ovaries, liver and bile ducts, bone, kidneys, bladder, testicles, or skin, or leukemias other than chronic lymphocytic leukemia (in veterans themselves, as opposed to their children).
Studies done in the lab
Herbicides such as 2,4,5-T and 2,4-D are not considered highly toxic compounds by themselves, and high doses are required to cause effects in lab animals. These compounds have not been linked with cancer in animal studies.
In the lab, TCDD (dioxin) increases the risk of a wide variety of tumors in rats, mice, and hamsters. In lab dish studies, it has been shown to alter which genes are turned on or off and affects how cells divide and die, all of which could affect cancer risk.
What the expert agencies say
Several agencies (national and international) study different substances in the environment to determine if they can cause cancer. (A substance that causes cancer or helps cancer grow is called a carcinogen.) The American Cancer Society looks to these organizations to evaluate the risks based on evidence from laboratory, animal, and human research studies.
A few expert agencies have looked at whether Agent Orange or related compounds can cause cancer. The Institute of Medicine. Since 1994, the federal government has directed the Institute of Medicine (IOM), part of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), to issue reports every 2 years on the health effects of Agent Orange and similar herbicides. Titled Veterans and Agent Orange, the IOM reports assess the risk of both cancer and non-cancer health effects. Each health effect is categorized as having one of the following:
•sufficient evidence of an association
•limited/suggestive evidence of an association
•inadequate/insufficient evidence to determine whether an association exists
•limited/suggestive evidence of no association
This framework provides a basis for government policy decisions in the face of uncertainty. As of the most recent update, the links between Agent Orange exposure and cancer were designated as shown. (Note that this table shows only cancers. Other health effects are listed in the next section.)
IOM: Links Between Herbicides (Including Agent Orange) and Cancer
Sufficient evidence of an association
Soft tissue sarcoma
Non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL)
Chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), including hairy cell leukemia chronic B-cell leukemias
Limited/suggestive evidence of an association
Respiratory cancers (lung, trachea, bronchus, larynx)
7.0 Future Plans
We propose to:
· Identify the extent of the contamination that causes these cancers and
· Make sure a proper investigation and cleanup is completed and that
· Compensation is paid to the victims
We have met with Barbara A. Brookmyer, M.D., Health Officer Frederick County and are keeping her informed
We propose to visit USEPA offices in Baltimore and seek a meeting with Shawn M. Garvin Regional Administrator, EPA Region 3 - Philadelphia
We propose to visit the MED offices in Baltimore and seek a meeting with Shari T. Wilson, Secretary of Maryland Department of the Environment and
Shortly we will visit the offices of Congressman Roscoe Bartlett