DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

US ARMY TOXIC AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AGENCY

ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND, MARYLAND 21O1O-54O1

ATTENTION OF September 30, 1985

Installation Restoration Division

Mr. lan J. ForrestDirector, Bureau of Environmental ServicesBaltimore County Department of Health401 Bosley AvenueTowson Mary land 21204

Dear Mr. Forrest:

Reference meeting held among representatives from Baltimore County, theState of Maryland, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, and theU.S. Army Toxic and Hazardous Materials Agency on September 17, 1985,concerning response actions at the Phoenix Military Reservation,Jacksonville, Maryland (see enclosure 1 for list of attendees).

Ihis letter serves to follow up the discussion during the referencedmeeting to transmit the U.S. Army Record of Decision on the RemedialAlternative Selection for the Fire Control Area of the Phoenix MilitaryReservation (encl 2) to appropriate County, State, and Federal agencies.

The Record of Decision outlines all actions that are required to protecthuman health and the environment within and surrounding the Fire Control Areaof tile Phoenix Military Reservation.

Request that Baltimore County take appropriate action to restrict the useof groundwater for drinking water purposes within the theoretical maximumarea of contamination. A copy of the long term monitoring program to beconducted by the Army will be provided your office. No further action withregard to this site is planned on the part of the U.S. Army.

The point of contact for this Agency is Mr. Kenneth E. Wiggans, (301)671-3530/3240.

Sincerely,

Original signed byGOLF. A. THUiASSYF. A. ThomassyColonel, Chemical CorpsConmandingU.S. Army Toxic and Hazardous

Materials Agency

Enclosure

Copies Furnished (with enclosure) :

Francis Mulhern, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 841Chestnut Building, Sixth Floor, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107

Mr. Ron Nelson, Director, Waste Management Administration, State ofMaryland, Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, 201 W. Preston Street,Baltimore, Maryland 21201

MEETING 17 Sept. 85 @BCDHPHOENIX MILITARY RESERVATION

NAME

Andrew W. Anderson

Kenneth E. Wiggans

John H. Hobner

Brooks H. Stafford

Judy Sussman

Mary - Linda Adams

Barry E. Chambers

Lorie Acker

Jennifer Macek

Jim Dieter

lan J. Forrest

Thomas H. Ernst

ORGANIZATION

U.S. Army Toxic &Hazardous Agency

U.S. Army Toxic & HazardousMaterials Agency

Dept. of Health Balto. Cty.

Dept. of Health Balto. Cty.

Executive Office

State Health Dept.

State Health Dept.

U.S. EPA Region III

County Council

Baltimore County Health

Baltimore County Health

Baltimore County Health

PHONE

301-671-3618

301-671-3530

301-494-3768

301-494-2762

301-494-2450

301-659-2950

301-659-2950

215-597-3165

301-494-3387

301-494-3766

301-494-3766

301-494-3811

RECORD OF DECISIONREMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE SELECTION

SITE; Fire Control Area, Phoenix Military Reservation (PHX), Jacksonville,Maryland

DOCUMENTS REVIEWED:

o Assessment of Contamination, PHX, July 15, 1983, Environmental Science iand Engineering, Inc. (ESE).

o Study of Alternate Water Sources to Replace Contaminated WaterResources, PHX, Maryland, January 1984, Sheladia Associates, Inc.

o Location of tJoncontaminated Water Well Sites for Fire Control AreaSite, PHX, Maryland, May 23, 1984, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, BaltimoreDistrict.

o Results of Bedrock Fracture Analysis, Fire Control Area, PHX, v

Jacksonville, Maryland, June 1984, ESE.

o Assessment of Contamination, PHX, Launch Control Area, August 1984, ESE.

o Historical Overview of the Nike Missile System, December 1984, ESE.

o Remedial Action Alternatives Assessment at PHX, January 25, 1985, ESE.V/

DESCRIPTION OF SELECTED REMEDY:

o Provide an alternate water source by extending an existing BaltimoreCounty Water Supply main to the Fire Control Area.

o Remove existing site improvements, regrade, and revegetate the FireControl Area.

o Implement a monitoring program subsequent to the remedial action.

DECLARATION:

Consistent with the Army commitment to provide a long term water supply inareas affected by Army created groundwater contamination and based on theresults from the documents reviewed, it has been determined that the remedialactions described above are the most feasible, permanent, cost effectiveremedies, and provide adequate protection of public health, welfare, and theenvironment. Baltimore County agencies, State and County officials (and/ortheir representatives), and the Jacksonville catmunity have been consulted.Letters from the Baltimore County Executive and a large majority (80%) of theGarments received frcm concerned citizens agree with the extension of thecounty water supply. Army will finance extension of public water to the Fire

Control Area subject to an agreement with Baltimore County and contingent uponthe County's ability to implement this solution,. In addition, the Army willprepare the Fire Control Area for exoessing through demolition of buildingsand structures, regrading, and revegetating, and implement a groundwatermonitoring program at the site.

DATE' * LEWIS D. WALKERDeputy for Environment, Safety, andOccupational Health

Office of the Assistant Secretary ofthe Army (I&L)

NA'

OF RIIIEL'IAL ALTTJiKATIVE SEIiCTION FIRE CONTROL AREAFHOENIX MILIT/iRY RESERVATION (PHX)

SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION

PHX is a former Hike missile site consisting of two parcels of land - thefire ("ontrol Area and the Launch Control Area - located in northeasternBaltimore County (Figure 1) . The two halves of the site, each containingapproximately 17 acres of land, are approximately 0.6 miles apart and occupytwo adjacent hilltops- separated by a surface water drainage feature, GreensBranch. Land adjacent to the PliX sites is rural residential with Uieccmnunity of Jacksonville approximately 0.6 miles to the east.

The topography is characterized by rolling hills formed by thedifferential erosion of fractured ard unfractured metomorphic bedrock. Thesoil and bedrock forrr a single, and for the rrost part, unconfined aquifersysteir, recharged solely by infiltrating rainfall. Documented well yields inthe PHX area are very lev, typiceJ ly loss than seven gallons per minute. OneT:O two gallons per minute are not unusual, and in fact, several of the monitoiv.-eir.s at the PHJ, have yield:-: of fractions cf a gallon per hour.

SITE HISTORY

PHX was constructed in 1954 as a !;ike Ajar missile site. The site wasactive iron 1954 until 1966 and inactive from 1966 to 1974. The tlarylandNational Guard was granted a lo^se from the U.S. Arny Corps of Engineers,Baltirore District, to use anr: occupy the land and improvements oi the FireControl Area for training. A rive-year lease went into effect in 1974 and wasextended for an additional tivo years in 3979. However, the Fire Control Arealias been vacated since 1981. Ownership of tbi land and inprovemcrits at the.Launch Control Area were transferred tc Baltimore County in 1976. Thefacilities arc currently US.FX? by the Baltimore County Department of Parks ardRecreation cind the Fire Department Training Activity.

Cince January/ 1976, adjacent landowners have conplained t'ihout suspectedcontamination of thoir water wells by the FHX. In April 1981, the citizens otthe Jacksonville, Maryland, area officially notified the Baltimore CountyDepartment of Health of suspected contaniiiiation of their wells as a result ofactivities within the PHX. The sampling e -d analysis performed by theBaltimore Count*/ Department cf Health indicated presence of trichloroethylene(TCK) , a suspected carcinogen, in the grouridwater or; and adjacent to bothportions of PKX. Subsequently, ar the request of the U.S. Army Corpu ofLnginerrs, Baltinore District, the U.E. Anry Toxic Jind Hazardous MaterialsAgency was taskcxl tc conduct a contamination assefsnioin: of the Fire ControlArea and the Launch Control Area, a Roircuial Action Alternatives Afsessmentand an Alternatn Water Supply Study.

400 600 FEETj a»a»

120 240 METERS

Figure 1LOCATION MAP - PHOENIX MILITARYRESERVATION

SOURCE: ESE, 1984.

Phoenix Military ReservationJacksonville, Maryland

CUPRENT SITE STATUS

Rased on data from the tliroc assessments conducted at PHX, the out. rentsite status may be surrrrtarized as follows:

Groundwater at the Fire Control Area 2nd Launch Control Aree. iscontaminated with TCE. AT tj-ie Fire Control Area, data indicate that thecontamination originated froo the septic field and is now migrating beyond theboundary towards the north and west. At tlie Launch Control Area, surveyresults indicate that the ICE contamination originates off-post and that theLaunch Control Area ir net the source of contamination. The levels of TCE insoils at bcth the Fire Control Area ar.d Launch Control Are« arc- belowdetection liiriits.

These data coupled with partition coefficient calculations indicate thatthe Fire Control Area septic system is no Icncjur an active source of TCE.H(juever, soil ct..t deiTonst::atjon data seem to indicate that tho vehicle washrack may also have been a source o;~ TCE £it the Fire Control Arc-a. (Thiri.jic:ortainty wiiJ be resolved and acrour'.t.eu for Li'i the proposed Fi.re Contro]Area cleanup)•

Tlie 'IV.'E c'oncentrat or.s in rlie rjhsllow v.'olls at Fire Ccr.trcl 7vrea decreasedtc approximatoiy one-thirc.1 t-htjix 19B3 values by late 1984, indicating dilut-ionby perccdatmg rainfall aric\ lateral movcrrrvt. Witli the exception of one well,the TCE 3evf:l.-i in deep wt.lls at F.ire Control Arua remained relatively

ti, r-i;ccesting peer rlu ir.c. cf the deep bedrock irartures.

Bc^fifxi on tihe punip tost datr, at I iunch Contxc l Aroa, crcijndwatei tj:e.itraentat PI™ was deteniuii'/r? tc be nonfe-asible. Well yields, even in tlie bcr.t-casescenario, re too lev; t.c maintain tlov^ to ai efficiently r.i ed trcdtjiientsysten;. Additionally as the pump tesst drta indicate, veils placed to extract<-,roui'.cv:ater froti specific aiccu;; within PMX raay riot Vvitlidraw water '."ran theiirrno<f.ic.te area. At a result, c. very high density oi" wcl]p vould be requirc-ci'co treat all the affrcted grour.dv/ater, ar.c tho expense would exceed tl'.ereturn. It is probable that jackets of untreated cjroundwater \JOU!G renair.even v/ith a high-clensity oxtraction well network.

Based or. tlie result:.: irom the soil saiT.pii.ny investigation (no detectableTCE) and the pump tost, as well as the Army's cotmitinoire to providing along-tt.:rrii alternate water supply, the rcrrrdial action alternations assessmentwas no Ic'r.ger applicable and a detailed dispor,.i tion oTialysis was ccmpletexl inIts place. The disposition analysis CLCxanentod the materials, procedures, andcosts required tc demolish the Liuildings and structurf-y, regrac'e, androvoc;etate tlie Fire Control Area. The estimated total cost for the demolitionof buildings and structures, regrading, and revegetation of Fire Control Areai? approximately $ 00,000 (-f- 30%). Tic only materials requiring spocia]hand Liny ai~e cortair; r.fxmcnt.3 ci insulatj.or; rT.de of anb-

ALTERNATE WATER SOURCE EVALUATION

An-alternate water sources study was tasked to the Baltimore District,Corps of Engineers in October 1983. The objectives were to perform a limitedscope (quick paper study) focusing on providing the Army with a listing ofpotential alternate water sources for the eight residences and the BaltimoreCounty Recreation Center receiving bottled water at that time. Listed below arethe original alternatives considered for comparative analysis.

a. New individual or regional wells or combination of same,

b. Continue bottled water for a 25-year period.

c. Provide storage tank at each of eight specified residences and theBaltimore County Recreation Area.

d. Provide storage tank at Phoenix Military Reservation and distribute^water to each residence and the Baltimore County Recreation Area for a period of25 years.

.-- e. Possible use of spring adjacent to Donnock Lane as source.

f. Treat Phoenix Military Reservation site well water and distribute toeach of the eight residences and the Baltimore County Recreation Area.

(1) Air stripper.

(2) Carbon adsorption unit.

g. Purchase affected homes,

h. Extend Baltimore County water supply.

Based on comments at initial preliminary meetings, the followingAlternatives were not considered acceptable by the Baltimore County Departmentof Health and Maryland State Health Department due to permit or healthrestrictions.

a. Continue bottled water for a 25-year period.

b. Provide storage tank at each residence for trucked-in water.

c. Provide storage tank at Phoenix Military Reservation for trucked-inwater.

d. Use of Donnock Lane spring.

The following alternatives were considered by both the contractor and theArmy to be unlikely choices.

a. New individual wells -- Although relatively low in cost, newindividual wells are considered d poor choice since it represents little changefrom the existing situation. Additional wells drilled on properties of affectedhomeowners will likely encounter the same trichloroethylene that currentlyexists.*

b. Purchase affected homes -- The purchase of affected homesalternative has a low potential for feasibility due to the high cost anduncertain political and social acceptability.

Primarily because of high capital costs, extending the Baltimore Countywater supply system to the Fire Control Area was considered by the contractor tobe a lov: viability alternative. However, extending the county water supplysystem may be more viable than costs alone depict. It would be a permanentsolution (assuming that the water line would be taken over and maintained by thecounty and that the Army would not be liable for the costs of hooking up newdevelopments) supplying water at a known quantity and of a known quality andwould assure an adequate water supply for possible future demands. Propertyvalues and land use restrictions could normalize and thereby lessen the Army'sootential liability. Land values for the Fire Control Area developed by theBaltimore District Corps of Engineers indicate that the value of the landincreases from $H,500/acre as is (buildings and no water source) to $3,000/acrewith buildings removed and land restored, and finally, $7,000/ acre with theadditron of public water. This alternate water source coupled with demolitionof existing facilities offers the greatest potential for favorable excessing ofthe Fire Control Area and obviating requirements for groundwater treatment.

The three alternatives that the contractor considered most viable basedprimarily on cost comparisons include:

a. Regional well without treatment.

b. Regional well with treatment of groundwater by carbon absorption.

c. Regional well with treatment of groundwater by air stripping at theFire Control Area.

While cost factors make these alternatives attractive, the technical aspectsof the three alternatives are full of uncertainty. A detailed discussion on theproblems associated with developing a regional well system that would haveadequate yield and will be permanently free from contamination is provided asenclosure 1. All of the potential problems may result in a total cost for thisoption which may not, in fact, be significantly lower than the selection ofother options which offer a permanent, though flexible solution, albeit at agreater cost.

The regional well field alternative introduces an uncertainty, technicalfeasibility, which is not present with extension of the county water system. Adecision to select the regional well field alternative cannot be consideredfinal as it must include consideration of the necessity to acquire property orat least the right to perform construction and field testing of the new well orwells prior to the final determination of feasibility.

Completion (i.e., submittal of test results) of construction and fieldtesting of the new system may take approximately six months. At this time, thetechnical feasibility may be verified and significant cost savings would berealized. Conversely, the newly completed well(s) may be shown to beinsufficient for the calculated water demand. At this point, a decision wouldbe required concerning elimination of the regional well as a viable alternative,or to repeat the construction/test program in a different location. Thisiterative approach, which maintains the current situation at the affected homes(i.e.. Army-supplied bottled water) for an indefinite period, may not beacceptable from a political point of view.

Additionally, if a multi-step iterative test program does not indicate thatthe well field is feasible, then implementation of the county water extensionalternative would have to occur utilizing funding potentially subject toadditional inflationary forces or budgetary constraints relative to currentconditions.

Finally, the low costs associated with the regional well are based onapplying water to seven residences from a regional well system located at the

-^ire Control Area. The costs do not include future development, which is verylikely, within the 50-60 acre area encompassing the maximum potential extent ofcontamination.

COMMUNITY RELATIONS

The U.S. Army Toxic and Hazardous Materials Agency's effort to obtaincommunity comments on the potential alternate water sources resulted in a seriesof meetings in late spring and throughout the summer and fall with BaltimoreCounty Department of Health (BCOH) and elected officials. The BCDH indicatedthat it wanted the lead in organizing a public meeting but would not be preparedfor a public meeting until it had evaluated the potential alternate watersources. Subsequently* two letters were received from Baltimore CountyExecutive Donald Hutchinson stating that the County desired extension of public-•ater to the Fire Control Area and that the County would design and construct

le waterline if the Army provided financing. At a 7 Nov 84 meeting, BCDHindicated that the County would not be prepared for a community meeting untilJan 85.

• Events overtook BCDH's timetable, and community meetings, arranged bycommunity representatives, were held 13 Dec 84 and 23 Jan 85. The County, U.S.Army Toxic and Hazardous Materials Agency, and the Baltimore District Corps ofEngineers were represented at these meetings. The potential alternate watersources were presented, and the community residents were requested to sendcomments to the U.S. Army Toxic and Hazardous Materials Agency not later than1 Feb 85. Also, immediately after the 13 Dec 84 meeting, copies of the Jul 83contamination assessment and alternate water source study reports and a mapoutlining the potential maximum groundwater contamination boundary were placed

in the local library and post office. In addition, announcements were placed inthe Towson Times, Messenger, and Jeffersonian (local newspapers) stating thatthe Army was seeking public comments by 1 Feb 85 on the potential alternatewater Source issue and that relevant documentation could be reviewed at thelocal library'and post office.

A large majority of the comment letters that were received (34 out of 42)indicated a preference for public water.

RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE

The enclosed table summarizes the alternate water sources, associated costs,advantages and disadvantages. In the process of selecting a viable, costeffective water source, the following policy factors were considered:

o The Army is responsible for providing a long-term water supply in anarea affected by Army-created groundwater contamination.

o The supply design should minimize future Army involvement, allowfuture development in the area, and provide the most reliable long-term sourceof w^ter.

In light of the above factors, the tie-in of the Fire Control Area to anextended Baltimore County water supply system is the only long-term option whichprovides for future development in the area without continued costs to the Army.The low cost of the regional well system is overridden by the uncertainty ofdeveloping a system that would have adequate yield, be permanently free fromcontamination, and satisfy the Army's long-term objectives.

ALTERNATE WATEB SOURCES

ALTERNATIVE

Regional Well System

INITIALCAPITALCOST +

81,076

AVERAGE PRESENTANNUAL WORTHCOST •»-» COST

(2S YEARSJ (25 YEARS)

23,015 168,713

RANKINGBY PRESENTWORTH COST

1

ADVANTAGES

C irSon Adsa rp t ionRegional

87,976 24,388 178,780 Low coat ,t reated

99,476 26,677 Low cost,t rested

27.8J5 204.038 Low roat,only normal04M

DISADVANTAGES

No guarantee of adequateclean well yield*. Limitedcapacity for futuredevelopment.

Limited capacity,acceptability.

psychological

Limited capacity, psychologicalacceptability.

So guarantee of adequateclear well yield or that Itwill remain clean, futureresidences.

ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS

Area of potential environmentalImpact Include! disruption andloss of farmland end/orrecreational/residential area*during well field telling andconstruction. Potentialchange In groundwater flowpattern under Influence ofpimping.

Areas of potential environmentalconcern Include* disruption andloss of farmland and/orrecreatlonal/realdentlal areaaduring well field testing andconstruction and generation ofhazardous wastes fton watertreatment. Potential changeIn groundwater flow pattern.

Areas of potential environmentalconcerns Include disruption andloss of farmland and/orrecreatlonal/realdentlal areasduring well field testing andconstruction and localized airpollution from volatilizationof TCE during treatment.Potential change in groundvaterflow pattern.

Nuisance and InconvenienceImpacts to residential areaduring well installation.

ALTERNATE WATER SOURCES PAGE 2

AVERAGE PRESENTI N I T I A L ANNUAL UORTH RANKINGCAPITAL COST-H- COST BY PRESENT

(25 YEARS1 (25 YEARS) WORTH COST

99,857" 3 3 , 2 4 7 234 ,537

37,007 2 7 1 , 2 6 1

.^,085

60,114

330,684

4iO,642

1 , 0 1 7 , 7 ^ 0 1 !f i .S21 1 . 0 1 7 , 7 5 0

ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES

Low cost , Only at k i tchen tap,treated l iabil i ty only 10-year l i fe

a par., acceptabi l i ty.

Clean water Only for cooking and drinking,supply dependent upon deliverycompany.

Clean water High yearly coats, supplydependent on de l ivery company.

C l e a n wa te r High yea r ly costs, supplydependent on de l ivery company.

P o l i t i c a l and social accep ta -b i l i t y , high cost , po ten t i a l f o radd i t i ona l hoaies, even tua ldisposal o£ p r o p e r t y .

ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS

Small amounts of hazardous wastefrom water treatment system.

Potential effect! regardingpolit ical , economical, andsocial acceptability.

Disruption of residential areafrom construction of t ruckaccess and storage systems.

Disruption of residential areafront construction of t ruckaccess and storage systems.

Potential e f f ec t s regardingpol i t ica l , economical, andsocial accep tab i l i ty .

One time cost rCA option may only be usableto the Army, w i t h serond a l te rna t ive forsolves Jack- L C A . The f o l l o w i n g commentss o n v l l l e are a p p l i c a b l e to bo thwater pro- op t i ons . High c a p i t a l cost,blcms, gond may t ake a long t ime toPR I m p l e m e n t , o b t a i n i n g r l g h t -

n f - w a v raav h e d l f f l i u l t .

Potential effects from con-struct ion of water lineextension and indirect e f f e c t sof changes in land use andpopulat ion density w i t h theIncreased ava i l ab i l i t y of water .

if c . i p i t a l co s t s . ind I n f l a t i o n of r p t j r a t i o n .md nj in [ esianr i j costs.

I tn- o p e r a t i o n and ma la t en i i ncp co:-t: For FCA o n l y o p t i o n of 554 ,320 , and for t o t a l FCA and LCA option cf 575,867.

/ c

11 April 1985

Environmental Science and Engineering, Inc.P. 0. Box ESE'Gainesville, Florida 32603

TECHNICAL FEASIBILITY OF REGIONAL WELL FIELD DEVELOPMENT

Previous Studies:

Three studies were completed during 1984 which dealt with the concept ofregional well field development in or adjacent to the Fire Control Area (FCA).Environmental Science and Engineering, Inc. (ESE), conducted a bedrock fractureanalysis at FCA. Baltimore District Corps of Engineers (CE) produced a position

aper delineating potential well sites for noncontaminated water for FCA, andSheladia Associates, Inc., conducted a study of alternative water sources.

Both the fracture analysis and the position paper concerning potential wellsites-relied heavily upon reconnaissance geohydrological exploration by theUnited States Geological Survey (Otton, 1983). Otton (1983) provided alineament map of the Phoenix, Maryland, area, tentatively locating zones ofpotentially higher bedrock permeability resulting from increased weatheringalong major bedrock fractures. Otton (1983) clearly stated that lineamentsobservable in aerial photography may not necessarily be related to increasedbedrock fracturing. Both the ESE and CE documents also identified thisuncertainty. However, both ESE and CE selected areas for potential well fieldsbased upon the location of lineaments because it was felt that the probabilityof locating productive wells was higher in the vicinity of the lineaments. Nodeterministic data (i.e., drilling, well testing) were developed for theselected areas, located off post to the east of FCA, to attempt to quantify theprobability of locating productive wells. ESE and CE, as well as the alternateiter source study (Sheladia Associates, Inc., 1984), indicated that field

_<»sting of the potential areas was required to assess the technical feasibilityof the well field concept.

Potential Well Field Sites:

ESE and CE selected well locations in the off-post area east of FCA for thefollowing reasons:

a. Proximity to the potential service area.

b. Potential for increased permeability due to the existence of alineament.

c. Greatest distance from the known contamination at FCA.

Enclosure 1

d. Ability of area to receive recharge from the greatest possiblearea.

• e. Lack of development at the potential well sites.

Items b and d were the most important issues in determining well siteselection. As described in the following section, these items both containunspecified levels of uncertainty, as do several other issues related to wellfield placement.

Potential Problems in Well Field Area:

As stated previously, the existence of a lineament may not be related toincreased bedrock permeability. During the environmental survey at FCA (ESE,1983), low areas in the bedrock were identified by rock coring which weresomewhat reflected in subdued linear features on the land surface. Monitorwells installed in these lineament-type features did not exhibit well yields

ich differed from the norm at FCA.•*.—-•

The potential well field site is located in a swale in the land surface (seeFigure 1), which would allow groundwater to flow to wells from all directionsexcept from the north (downgradient). This effectively increases the rechargearea available to the well field, potentially increasing the quantity ofavailable groundwater. However, the same land contours which allow an increasedflow of groundwater toward the well field could also carry domesticcontamination. The eastern half of the recharge area contains domestic septicfields from the homes along Trojan Horse Drive in the Merryman's Millsubdivision. A portion of the surface runoff from Sunnybrook Road, which passesby the southern terminus of the swale, is directed into the swale, potentiallycarrying road salt and automotive hydrocarbons into the recharge area.Baltimore County Department of Health has indicated a reluctance to considersimilar areas for water supply where salt and biological contamination maybecome a problem. An existing community well field to the southeast of FCA iscurrently experiencing these types of problems.

_ Assuming that FCA is eventually excessed, and that development would follow,the western half of the well field recharge area may also become a source ofroad salt and biological contamination.

At the present time, eight homes have been affected by Army-derivedcontamination. However, additional undeveloped lots exist within the area ofcontamination, indicating that development of the well field must be implementedto consider increasing water demands with time. This only increases thedifficulty in locating adequate supplies of groundwater. Completedgeohydrological studies at the FCA and Launch Control Area (similargeohydrological environment) have indicated that there is a tendency for watersupply wells in the area to exhibit a decrease in yield with time. This may beattributed to the infilling of bedrock fractures with clay and silt which isdrawn into the fractures from the overlying soils under the influence ofpumping. A slow decrease in well production with time is in direct conflictwith the potential for increased water demands during the same time interval.

**

\ . ^X "«, r xv

.^«o$N -..IS.1! EEp!1 ','*•' .. t »-7} f JWwvr-frM*_ / • HOMS

LMUMNTtigrnm,MPMM)• POTINTIM. PMCTWiSinC 1«**l

RELATIONSHIP Of LINEAMENTS/FRACTURES TO PROPERTY BOUNDARIES

'Potential Well Field Site.

Existing geohydrological studies also indicate that well yields fluctuatesignificantly with groundwater levels. A potential exists that the successfultesting of a well field could be conducted during one portion of the year, andthen at another time, well yields could drop to insufficient levels. Droughtconditions would amplify this phenomenon. Liability for delivery of an adequatewater supply may continue through, these periods.

Although the well field alternative was determined to be the leastexpensive alternative (assuming regional well on FCA), several additional cost 'items may need to be considered. Access rights to off-post property would berequire*, potentially leading to permanent land indemnification/acquisitioncosts. Costs to install an observation well network to be used during pumptesting of the new wells were not considered. Manpower and instrumentation arerequired to setup, operate, and reduce data derived from the pump test.

The social and political concerns associated with a well field located lessthan 1000 feet from an area of known groundwater contamination may increaseanalytical chemistry costs if frequent well sampling is required. Thisadditional cost would be added to sampling costs which may be underestimated inthe alternate water source study.

Summary:

Uncertainty exists in a number of issues associated with development of awell field which may result in continuous involvement and liability by the Army.The specific issues are:

a. Correlation between location of lineaments and increased bedrockpermeability.

b. Potential for road salt and biological contamination derived fromcurrent development east of the well site, potential development with FCA, anddevelopment along Sunnybrook Road.

c. Ability of well field to handle increased water demands with time.

d. Potential for reduction of well yields with time as a result ofnatural geohydrological conditions.

e. Ability to adequately size well field to handle well yieldfluctuations related to groundwater level fluctuations.

f. Uncertain costs associated with land acquisition, pump testing, andwater quality testing.

All of the items may result in a total cost for this option which may not infact be significantly lower than selection of public water which offers apermanent solution.