Minutes prepared by Julie Burdey, Parsons ES

The agenda for this meeting is attached.  These meeting minutes are organized in the order of the agenda, not necessarily in the order they were discussed.

INTRODUCTIONS

The meeting was opened with brief introductions.  The purpose of the meeting, kickoff for the B-20/Geographic Information System (GIS) project, was stated.  Brian Murphy described CSSA, with emphasis on the B-20 site and other solid waste management units (SWMUs). 

AMC Contract Introduction

Matt Bowen briefly described the AMC contract.  He noted that any changes to the scope or schedule of the project must be approved by AMC.  Matt indicated that John Stewart (Parsons ES Program Manager) requests these modifications.  Nancy noted that, in case of an emergency, AMC will grant modifications to the order over the phone.  In most cases, however, modifications will be granted in writing only.  Jo Mullen emphasized the fact that she cannot authorize or direct changes or additions to the scope or schedule.  Brian Murphy added that he also could not direct changes.

Project Organization

Julie Burdey gave a brief description of the general purposes of the project:  continue the B-20 investigation, conduct B-20 treatability study, and prepare a facility-wide GIS.  The project organization (attachment 1 to the agenda) was discussed.  The project is divided into two main areas:  B-20 and the GIS.  Teresa Anderson will act as task manager for the GIS.  Julie Burdey will oversee the entire project, with particular attention to the B-20 investigation and treatability study.  Several subcontractors will be necessary for work at the B-20 site.

The work breakdown structure, or WBS (attachment 2 to the agenda), was also discussed.  The B-20 investigation, treatability study, and GIS will each be tracked separately.

B-20

UXO Identification

The scope of the B-20 investigation was discussed in detail.  The north and east “extensions” were described by Brian Murphy.  Jo asked if EPA or TNRCC will be taking the lead for the B-20 work.  Brian said that, since the Consent Order has not yet been signed, TNRCC still has the lead.

Julie indicated that her interpretation of the SOW was that vegetation clearing would be handled by CSSA.  Brian said that CSSA will not do any physical clearing, and added that the only clearing that will be necessary will be to trim the lower branches of the cedars.  Jo added that, at the time the SOW was prepared, it was thought that no clearing would be possible due to endangered species habitat concerns.  UXO identification subcontractors can do this work; they have chainsaws, weed-whackers, etc.  Julie asked if other CSSA equipment (bobcat, backhoe)could be used in the unlikely event that it would be necessary.  Brian said that they could use it, as they had in the past.  CSSA can also supply fuel for the heavy equipment (not for pick-ups, etc.), oil for chainsaws, etc, to save money.  Brian suggested that 50-foot transects might need to be cut to do a thorough survey for UXO.

Jo and Brian agreed that UXO identification subcontractors should pick up scrap metal as they see it.  Julie recommended that the UXO subcontractors use magnetometers to identify UXO (and secondarily, scrap metal).  Magnetometer rental is relatively cheap and guarantees a more thorough screening.  Jo and Brian agreed that they should be used.  No subsurface geophysical surveys will be conducted because buried UXO is not expected (based on history of site use).

Julie indicated that, according to the SOW, sampling will be limited to areas of concern (for example, location where raw explosives are found).  Jo agreed, and Brian asked if field kits would be used.  Julie said that field kits could be used.  [Note:  Field kits can be used for explosives analyses only.  If metals analyses are necessary, samples must be shipped to a laboratory.]  Julie asked if Brian would like a confirmation sample to be sent to a laboratory.  When field test kits are used, a confirmation sample is typically sent to a lab to confirm field results.  Jo said that the TNRCC will more likely accept the field results if there is lab confirmation.  Brian agreed that a confirmation sample should be taken.  It was agreed that explosives-contaminated soil will be drummed, and Brian suggested that it be detonated along with UXO found at the site.  Brian added that EOD can do the detonation.

Julie then summarized the scope of the B-20 investigation:

·     UXO identification subcontractor will clear lower branches of vegetation using their own equipment.  CSSA’s heavy equipment (bobcat) can be used on a limited basis if necessary.

·     UXO identification subcontractor shall sweep north and east extensions using a magnetometer.  Scrap metal encountered will be picked up and collected in a bin for recycling.

·     Samples will be collected in suspect areas only.  Field test kits will be used, with some lab confirmation.  If explosives-contaminated soil is identified, it will be drummed.

·     Boundaries of north and east extensions will be surveyed.

·     All UXO identified will be detonated on site.

Julie said that these activities will be described in the work plan.  The work plan will be an amendment to previous work plans, and will be very short.  The Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP) for this project will also be an amendment which will reference the SWMU Closure (RL17) SAP, which has been AFCEE-approved.  Field testing and explosives analysis will be added to SAP.  The Health and Safety Plan (HSP) amendment will also be very short.  The work plan will consist of figures of the area to be addressed along with a few pages of text.  Since the kickoff meeting was later than anticipated, submittal of the plan amendments will be delayed (as shown in attachment 3 of the agenda).  Julie indicated that John Stewart is currently preparing a no-cost mod request.  Julie also noted that field work will start later, after the plan amendments have been finalized and approved.

There was some discussion on whether EPA should be sent draft copies of the plan amendments.  EPA does not like to see additional changes (other than their own) to a document.  If we send them a draft, there will be additional comments from CSSA and AFCEE.  It may be better to send them the final only.  If EPA has comments, they could be addressed in a letter, or as an attachment to the final plan.

Bench-Scale Treatability Studies

Jo initiated the treatability study discussion by noting that the contaminant of concern for the studies is lead.  Lead is a problem at many sites at CSSA, and results of studies at B-20 will be used to identify remedial options for these other sites.  Julie noted that there are two areas of concern at B-20.  First, there are ammunition disposal areas which consist primarily of sand and lead shot.  Second, there is a large area where clayey surface soils are contaminated with lead, mercury, barium, and cadmium.  Julie suggested that studies on the sandy material would likely not indicate the effectiveness on the technology on clayey soils.  The matrix will affect the effectiveness.  Excavation and disposal is probably the most cost effective way to remediate ammunition disposal areas.  Julie suggested that the studies be conducted on contaminated clayey surface soils.  Jo and Brian agreed, and Jo added that a tech meeting will be held with Beth Berman before the studies are started.  Specific area where samples will be taken will be discussed at that time.

Jo and Brian added that one of the goals of the treatability studies is to find a way to reduce the area of concern (if elimination is impossible).  Since lead contamination is most prevalent, an effective method to remediate lead would help to reduce the size exceeding standard 1.  If a method for remediating barium cannot be found, then maybe just the area with high barium levels will have to be closed under standard 2.  Julie asked that, although lead is the primary focus, should we test each method’s efficiency at removing other metals of concern.  Jo said yes, and if possible, use sample that is affected by all metals.

The only deliverable will be the treatability study report.  Jo said that the report should not be research paper-oriented;  just present the studies, results, and make recommendations.  Jo envisions that the report will be similar to a corrective measures study (CMS).  Phytoremediation subcontractors may choose to produce research paper based on results, but that will not be done on project time.  Phytoremediation and soil washing bench-scale studies will be done in subcontractors labs.  Phytoremediation will consist of two harvests.  Weather station data can be provided to phytoremediation subcontractor for use in identifying appropriate plant species.

Rod asked where will CSSA be at the end of this work.  Will more investigations be necessary?  Jo said that a remedial method will be recommended, and associated costs will be provided.  With this information, CSSA can decide if they want to remediate the site, or if they want to close portions of the site under standard 2.  In addition, UXO should no longer be a concern at the site.

Subcontracting

Brian Murphy asked if UXB International would be doing the UXO identification work.  Julie responded that Parsons ES must do competitive bidding unless prior arrangements (sole source approval) are made.  Nancy concurred that competitive bidding is necessary, but added that, since UXB International has done the previous UXO identification work at CSSA, their bid should reflect their prior experience.  It was also noted that UXB International will give a better price if they know they are bidding competitively.

Jo Mullen asked if subcontracting procedure would be necessary for analytical laboratory.  Inchcape won several other projects at CSSA, including the SWMU project (order RL17), and is one of only a few labs in Texas that can meet TNRCC, EPA, and AFCEE requirements.  Unfortunately, she added, some labs will say they can meet the project requirements, but when the project is started, it is found that the lab is not even familiar with the requirements, and a new lab must often be contracted (impacting project schedule and budget).  AFCEE has been pleased with Inchcape’s performance on other CSSA projects.  A sole source justification letter was used to contract Inchcape for some work for another project after the lab under contract went out of business.  Rod asked if that letter could be used to contract Inchcape again.  In addition, Rod looked at the cost proposal for this project, and noted that there is only $2,000 of lab work scheduled.  Julie added that this cost will be even less because field test kits will be used for explosives analyses. 

GIS

Teresa Anderson described that information to be input into GIS was identified by Brian Murphy several months ago when he visited the Parsons ES office in Austin.  Teresa asked Brian to prioritize input of that information.  (Note:  Prioritization is attached.) 

Teresa verified with Brian that the map of the facility which Parsons ES is currently using (10 foot contours) is the map that CSSA would like in GIS.  Teresa briefly described that Tri-Services Spatial Data Standards (TSSDS) would be used for the GIS standards for this project.  The TSSDS were developed by the Corps of Engineers for DoD facilities, and Parsons ES anticipates that these standards will be used by most DoD facilities in the future. 

Teresa asked about what types of periodic reminders CSSA would like built in to the GIS.  NPDES reporting reminders, waste reporting?  Brian will think about it, and Brian and Teresa will discuss later.  Brian mentioned wastewater effluent sampling.

GIS will be used by CSSA engineers.  Teresa asked Brian to think about how CSSA would like the user interface to be set up.

Julie said there are some other issues that have come up in Parsons ES preliminary work on the GIS.  In the future, analytical data can be requested in a specific electronic format so that it can be easily imported into the GIS.  Julie suggested that Brian consider having any analytical work he has done independently from this project provided in this same format.  Likewise for survey data, which in the future should be provided electronically in UTM coordinates.  Having this GIS will further standardize CSSA’s data.

Jo Mullen suggested that Parsons ES find out about IRPIMS-type database that U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is developing.  Since CSSA is an Army facility, their data format should match other Army facilities’ format.  Brian has the name of the contact at the Corps (Seattle).  Farrukh suggested that the laboratory performing the analyses also be identified in the database.

Available aerial photos were then discussed.  We currently have 1966, 1990, and 1991 photos for entire installation.  Brian said that 1995 are also available, maybe from United Aerial Mapping.