Is the water around Ft. Deterick in Frederick, MD contaminated?
Executive summary
Yes — groundwater beneath and adjacent to Fort Detrick’s Area B has documented contamination, primarily with chlorinated solvents such as trichloroethylene (TCE) from historical laboratory and waste-disposal practices, and regulators have designated the site for federal cleanup and have closed many nearby private wells and connected residents to public water; however, the precise current risk to the broader surface-water system and long-term health impacts remain under continuing study and debate [1] [2] [3].
1. Contamination is real and well-documented: what was found and where
Federal and state investigations have repeatedly found chlorinated solvents in Area B groundwater — USGS field studies conclude groundwater in the karst aquifer under Area B is contaminated with chlorinated solvents from past laboratory waste disposal [1] and EPA site records note off-site residential wells in the 1990s contained TCE at concentrations above cancer-risk screening levels, meeting criteria for Level I actual contamination [2].
2. Regulatory response: Superfund listing, well closures, and remediation work
Because of those findings, the Fort Detrick Area B groundwater was placed on the EPA National Priorities List and a federal cleanup framework was established with DoD and state participation, with the Army taking lead responsibility for remediation and a Site Management Plan updated annually [3] [2]. Most drinking-water wells near Fort Detrick have been closed and affected residents were connected to public water supplies as a protective measure [2] [4].
3. The science is complex: karst geology, monitoring gaps, and continuing investigations
Area B sits above a karst limestone aquifer that promotes unpredictable groundwater flow and vertical connectivity, complicating characterization and cleanup; USGS established multi-year monitoring and hydrogeologic studies precisely because of that complexity [1]. EPA and Army documents show ongoing remedial investigations and planned additional monitoring wells to better delineate extent and pathways of contamination, underscoring uncertainty about the full size and movement of the plume [2].
4. Where uncertainty and controversy meet: health claims, lawsuits, and differing interpretations
Local residents, developers, and plaintiffs’ attorneys assert thousands were exposed to contaminated drinking water and have linked exposures to cancers and other illnesses — claims echoed in legal guides and law-firm outreach that emphasize TCE, PCE and PFAS as contaminants of concern and potential bases for lawsuits [5] [6]. Independent reviews and public-health assessments have been less definitive about causal links: national reviews have found that available studies could not conclusively show that contaminated groundwater from Area B caused observed health outcomes, and ATSDR documentation details historical disposal practices and remedial steps without asserting definitive population harm [7] [8].
5. Current situation for residents and future development: precautions and planned protections
Army and local officials report progress but continue to find contamination in monitoring rounds, including detections under adjacent planned housing developments, prompting consideration of engineered protections for future homes and continued monitoring before development proceeds [4] [9] [10]. State and county agencies remain involved in oversight, and the Army’s remedial investigations are active, meaning risk-management — not simple containment — is the current operating approach [2] [11].
6. Bottom line and open questions
The bottom-line: groundwater around Fort Detrick’s Area B has confirmed contamination and has been treated as a Superfund cleanup site with well closures and connections to public water as immediate protective actions [2] [3]; what remains unsettled in the record provided is the current spatial extent of contamination in all seasons, the effectiveness and timeline of remediation to fully restore the aquifer, and whether long-term health effects in the community can be causally linked to past exposures — issues that agencies, litigants, and researchers continue to investigate [1] [7] [5].