The meeting was held in the CSSA building 1 conference room, beginning at 0900 hours on 22 August 96.  The following were in attendance (see attached sign-in sheet):

The purpose of the kick-off meeting was to introduce the contractor to the personnel involved in this delivery order and to discuss the scope of work (SOW) and its requirements.

The kick-off meeting agenda included an introduction of participants and discussion of various issues by the participants.  The meeting ended with a site tour by Mr. Murphy.  The following are minutes of the meeting.

Introduction of Participants

Tom McLean               HSC/PKUBB Contracting Officer

Jo Jean Mullen              AFCEE/ERD Restoration Team Chief

Rene Hefner                 AFCEE/ERC Environmental Hydrologist

Elizabeth Berman            AFCEE/ERC Chemical Engineer

Teri Lyons                    AFCEE/ERC Intern

Rod Chatham               CSSA Director of Special Projects

Brian Murphy               CSSA Environmental Officer

Mark Hemingway            CSSA Engineering Craft Team

Farrukh Ahmad            Booz, Allen & Hamilton, SETA contractor for AFCEE

Rick Brettin                  Parsons ES Program Manager

Susan Roberts              Parsons ES Project Manager

Discussions

Brian Murphy gave a brief overview of the CSSA facility, including that CSSA is a 4,000-acre site that is “closed” due to munitions storage.  Brian then requested that the meeting discuss the well upgrades with the input of Mark Hemingway.

The well upgrades are planned for CSSA wells 1 and 11.  Two treatment options were discussed - acidization and carbon dioxide.  Acidization is the conventional treatment whereby an acid and water solution is pumped into a well, particularly in a limestone aquifer, to enhance water movement into the well.  The acid solution produces some waste, may need more than one treatment, and is estimated at about $8,000 per well.  Carbon dioxide is a newer treatment whereby frozen CO2 is pumped into the well bore and expands as a gas into limestone fractures to increase water production.  The process leaves no waste and is about $7,000 per well through a patented process available through ECO2 Solutions, Inc.  It was agreed that the unique CO2 process is the more cost effective process.

A second subcontractor will be needed for well roof and piping/pump removal.  Three bids will be solicited for this action.  Mark Hemingway noted that a crane will be necessary for removal of the well house 1 roof, as the housing is a brick structure.  Also, the crane will have to deal with overhead lines and have at least a 30-foot boom.  The well house at well 11 is pre-fabricated aluminum and easier to remove.  Brian Murphy will take interested persons by well 1 later today for a site visit.

CSSA is interested in adding well 9 to the list of wells in the SOW for upgrading.  Tom McLean noted that it is very difficult to mod an AFCEE SOW just before the end of the government fiscal year, and that prior to modifying the SOW it might be best for CSSA to further discuss exactly what should be done.  In addition, Mr. McLean requested that project funding not be discussed at the kickoff meeting, just the technical work.  All parties agreed that project funding should be discussed at a subsequent meeting.

Brian Murphy noted that wells G and I now have water levels deeper than 300 feet below ground level (bgl).  At well 1, he noted that no one knew much about the supposedly perforated piping in that well.  Susan Roberts said that the well was originally over 1000 feet bgl, and CSSA well records from about the 1950’s indicated the perforations.  Mark Hemingway said that the well was treated with chlorine about 2 years ago.  The well is 14 inches in diameter, and if piping exists, it might be pulled with some difficulty, or a second smaller casing be installed inside the 14-inch casing.  Because little is known about the well, Susan Roberts suggested that Parsons ES contact some downhole camera survey firms for possible costs of such a survey in well 1.  These cost estimates will be sent to Brian Murphy, Jo Mullen, and Rene Hefner within 1-2 weeks.

Tom McLean then provided a discussion of the Delivery Order 0023 contract requirements as follows:

·        The project requires special payments.  Block 8 of the first page notes that Red River Army Depot (RRAD) must process the payments.  The MIPR number must be on each invoice and show a forward to RRAD in Texarkana.

·        Tom McLean as the HSC/PKUBB Contracting Officer is the only person authorized to make contract changes. 

·        The ceiling is $337,000.  The Contractor must notify the Contracting Officer when the project is at 85 percent completion

·        All correspondence must have contract number, including the delivery order number

·        Each deliverable must show the contract number and a CDRL number

·        Page 2 of the contract:  item 0001 costs.  Jo Mullen asked for a clarification about increases and decreases in the direct labor, support, and analytical costs.  Can these costs be more or less than shown on page 2, as long as the contract ceiling is not exceeded?  Tom said that is correct.

·        Page 3:  the delivery order schedule date must be met.  If the schedule slips, then AFCEE and CSSA should be notified well in advance of such a possibility.  The schedule date and any extensions must be approved for SOW modification by the Contracting Officer.

·        Note Attachment 2, pages 1-3.  The minimum wages shown must be paid through the life of the contract.

·        A pre-final inspection must be scheduled before the end date of the contract.

·        An overtime request must be made in advance of such time, and must be approved through the Contracting Officer.  The request must include:

-   Reason for overtime

-   The persons to incur overtime and personnel information:

       Full name

       Occupation

       Rate

       Overtime rate

-   Discuss the impact to the project if the overtime is not approved, and the effect on the overall budget.

-   Government employees must be onsite for all overtime work.

-   The contractor sends such a request to Jo Mullen.

·        All subcontractors must follow CSSA onsite rules.

-   AFCEE prefers that a site be left cleaner than when the Contractor arrives.

-   Safety training as appropriate should take place.

-   All injuries must be reported to AFCEE and CSSA.

·        The contractor needs to provide a schedule prior to each field event to Jo Mullen.

·        Labor dispute must be discussed with AFCEE.

·        Three sheets noting federal laws dealing with job safety, fair wages, and equal opportunity employment must be shown at the job site.  This can be the central staging area.

Susan Roberts then used the agenda and presentation materials provided prior to the meeting to discuss the groundwater monitoring background as follows:

·        A topographic map of the facility was shown, with each of the 14 wells currently at CSSA.  Wells 1, 9, 10, and 11 were noted as the active water production wells for CSSA.

·        A table of April 1996 well information was provided.

·        Four maps showing typical potentiometric surfaces through the years of monitoring (November 1992-April 1996).  Flow direction is generally to the south-southeast.  During non-rainy seasons, the effects of pumping can be observed at wells 9, 10, and 11.  When two new monitoring wells were installed in April 1996, a local change in flow direction to the east around the groundwater contamination source areas in the northeast inner cantonment was observed.

·        Three graphs were shown - one of precipitation versus water levels in well 16, and chlorinated organic concentrations over time in wells 16 and D.  It has been observed that rainfall events are followed by increases in chlorinated organic concentrations, suggesting flushing of the contaminants into the groundwater through percolation.

·        A schedule of events for the project was shown, along with a list of assumptions in completing that schedule.

·        The proposed monitoring program closely follows previous actions.  In particular, Parsons ES proposes to not purge the CSSA wells, as they are open borehole in limestone and are assumed to experience free flow through the borehole, rather than stagnation of water.

-   Rene Hefner expressed concern that no quantitation of the flow velocity through the CSSA wells has been made.  Without that quantitation, he has reservations about the assumption that purging is not necessary.

-   Rental of flow meters with 300-foot cables is not part of the current SOW, but Susan Roberts said that she would check into rental costs next week.

-   Rene said he will look into flow meters used by AFCEE that work well.  Also, Susan provided a letter on the MLS system (another system to determine vertical flow velocities and vertical concentration contours) to CSSA a year ago, and will fax that to Rene and Jo.

·        Data handling was discussed.  An exception to the SOW schedule that each monitoring event be followed by a draft ITIR and quarterly report was requested.  In order to obtain reasonable laboratory prices, a turnaround time of 21 days is anticipated.  This will be followed by 1 week of data validation and 1 week of report preparation.  Therefore, it will not be possible to submit draft reports until at least 5 weeks after all samples are received by the laboratory.  Parsons ES will submit a formal request for exception to the SOW regarding the current schedule.

·        Well upgrades were briefly discussed.  Parsons ES noted that the cost of new pumps was not included in the project cost tables, and Brian Murphy said that if new pumps are necessary, CSSA will obtain them.

·        Information that will be used towards possible locations of new monitoring wells was provided.  Parsons ES recommends that at least two quarterly monitoring events take place before decisions are finalized on well locations so that seasonal changes in groundwater flow direction, gradient, and contaminant concentrations can be evaluated.

Other items:

Susan Roberts said that work is already underway in preparation of the project plan addenda.  These addenda are planned to be brief, and to specify what items are additional to other plans’ sections that will be referenced.  Jo Mullen said that this was an appropriate approach, and that changes/addenda to the Field Sampling Plan should be sent to Rene Hefner as well.

CSSA water wells, including G, H, and I, will be turned off the weekend before a monitoring event, as long as the schedule is sent in advance.

Procurement of a laboratory firm for the project was discussed.  Susan Roberts and Jo Mullen noted that very few firms have been able to meet the AFCEE QAPP that is required by this and other projects.  Susan said that Parsons ES as a company has attempted use of two other firms, both of which failed to meet AFCEE criteria.  The firm which has met AFCEE criteria and QAPP requirements recently competed and won the bid for another CSSA environmental project.  Brian Murphy said that it seemed reasonable for the government to save money to not recompete for services that are close to those needed by this project.  Tom McLean said that in this case, a letter to Jo Mullen could be sent explaining the situation and requesting a sole source procurement.

Meeting adjourned 1200 hrs.  A site tour by Brian Murphy followed after a break for lunch.

Action Items

Parsons ES

1.         Send cost estimates for downhole camera surveys to AFCEE and CSSA within 1-2 weeks.

2.         Send estimates for flow meter rentals to AFCEE and CSSA within 1-2 weeks.

3.         Send the August 95 Parsons ES letter regarding the Weston MLS system to AFCEE and CSSA within 1-2 weeks.

4.         Submit to AFCEE and CSSA a request for exception to the SOW regarding deliverables schedule for draft ITIRs and quarterly monitoring reports.

5.         Submit kickoff meeting minutes and project plan addenda to AFCEE and CSSA per SOW CRDLs.

6.         Begin preparations for October 95 quarterly groundwater monitoring.

AFCEE

1.         Rene Hefner will review flow meters used on AFCEE projects and discuss with Susan Roberts.

CSSA

1.         CSSA will send a letter to AFCEE regarding sole source procurement for appropriate subcontracted services to be used for this project.

2.         CSSA will review the facility’s needs for additional well upgrades, and discuss with AFCEE how they would like to upgrade well 9 and well 1.