[Home]  [Master Table of Contents]

[Meeting Minute Index]

Meeting Minutes
Camp Stanley Storage Activity
F11623-94-D0024/RL17

Date:   November 12, 1996

Time:  9:00 am

Place:   Camp Stanley Storage Activity (CSSA)

Reference:     Contract F11623-94-D0024, Delivery Order RL17
SOW Para. 3.0.2,  Technical Interchange Meeting
Camp Stanley Storage Activity (CSSA) Closures and Integrated Spill and Waste Management Plan
Meeting Minutes 4 (Item 5.2.4, CDRL A007)

Subject:  Kickoff Meeting for Task 05A, discussion of background metals study, and project status to date

The meeting was held at the CSSA Building One conference room, beginning at 1000 hours on November 12, 1996.  This meeting was attended by representatives of CSSA, AFCEE, Booz-Allen & Hamilton (BAH), and Parsons ES.  The following were in attendance (see attached sign-in sheet):

              Name

Organization

Rod Chatham

CSSA Director of Special Projects

Brian Murphy

CSSA Environmental Officer

Jo Jean Mullen

AFCEE/ERD Restoration Team Chief

Beth Garland

AFCEE/ERC Chemist

Rene G. Hefner

AFCEE/ERC Hydrogeologist

Farrukh Ahmad

Booz-Allen & Hamilton

Susan Roberts

Parsons ES, Austin, Project Manager

Brian Vanderglas

Parsons ES, Austin, Task Manager

Julie Burdey

Parsons ES, Austin

Meeting Purpose

 The purpose of the meeting was to hold the kickoff meeting for the new task, discuss issues relative to the background metals study, and to update AFCEE and CSSA on the project status to date.

Meeting Agenda

The agenda was as follows:

·        Kickoff for new task:  SVE Treatability Study at SWMU B-3

̃     Summary of findings to date

̃     Discussion of field work

̃     Scheduling

̃     Milestones

̃     AFCEE or CSSA areas of concern

·        Discussion of background metals study

̃     Booz, Allen Hamilton comments and recommendations

̃     Discussion and resolution of study issues

̃     Revised schedule for completion of background study revisions and SWMU closure certifications/reports

·        Project status to date

̃     Field effort 2 analytical summary

̃     Possible additional investigative work

̃     Sites likely to be closed after Field Effort 2

Discussions

Meeting Objectives:

A list of the meeting agenda was handed out.

Kickoff Meeting for SVE Treatability Study at SWMU B-3:

Susan Roberts introduced Brian Vanderglas as Task Manager for the SVE Study and turned the presentations over to him.  Brian used as presentation material Sections 7 and 9 of the Groundwater Investigation and Associated Source Characterizations (Parsons ES, June 1996), a chronology of actions, and a figure from the draft Work Plan for the task, the proposed SVE layout for the treatability study.  Jo Mullen noted that AFCEE and BAH have not yet had time to review the draft Work Plan addendum.

With regard to background information at the site, Brian discussed the installation of vapor extraction wells (VEWs) in hot spots and the March 1996 pilot testing of the system.  The soil gas and geophysical data from the site were used to design the original system.  Several items of note were discussed.  For example, when the blower was turned on at VEW-1, there was no pressure response at monitoring points MPA, MPB, nor MPC, but a response was observed at VEW-4 and VEW-5.  When the blower was turned on at VEW-4, the only responses were observed at MPD and MDB.  It therefore appears that VEW-1 and VEW-2 aren’t connected through the subsurface, and VEW-2 and VEW-4 may be.  Farrukh asked how deep the wells are - about 19 feet bgl.  Higher VOC levels in deeper samples from trenched areas were found, but limestone samples had only soil gas concentrations of VOCs.  There was no observed pattern to metals distributions in samples.  Brian Murphy noted that carbon and nitrogen concentrations look good, and Brian Vanderglas concurred that natural attenuation may be taking place, but is difficult to quantify with the existing data.  Brian Murphy asked if Parsons ES could back-calculate the amount of TCE or PCE that went into the soils; page 7-22 of the report was referred to.  These calculations were based on numerous assumptions.

For the new system to be tested under Task 05A, the testing design will take into account previous results.  EPA TO14 will be the analytical method.  Air testing designs will also take into account the existing standard exemption.  Because no vinyl chloride has been found in the offgas, the standard exemption should not be affected in that regard.  Also, no more than six VEWs will be used at any point during testing, so that the number of wells are as noted in the standard exemption.  Brian Vanderglas asked Brian Murphy to keep the existing system operating, so that the levels can be measured after sustained operations over the last 8 months; Brian Murphy indicated that this is not a problem.

The proposed SVE layout has 20-30 feet between points, with six new points on each side of the existing line to help delineate the plume extent.  The location of these points can be alternated, and will be reviewed by AFCEE, BAH, and CSSA.  Brian Murphy asked if Parsons ES needed to emplace points in the 1,2-DCE “hot spot” - Brian Vanderglas said that this would probably not be effective, as this is a limestone area that would be difficult to confidently treat by SVE.  The system will be tested in different configurations.

The chronological order of activities was discussed.  The first action - submittal of draft project plans - occurred the first week of November.  AFCEE may have comments to Parsons ES within 1-2 weeks, or as late as December 2, 1996.  Brian Murphy will also need to review.  Jo Mullen said that for minor revisions, submittal and approval of just the corrected pages can be inserted into the draft plans to allow field work to begin on schedule in Dec 1996.  However, final plans will still need to be submitted and approved.  For this schedule, Brian Vanderglas also noted that Parsons ES will send letters to the TNRCC Air Division regarding notification of planned SVE testing.  Brian Vanderglas would like to begin field work in mid-December to get the system revisions up and running before the Christmas-New Year breaks.

Parsons ES will likely use the current drilling subcontractor, Core Terra.  Brian Murphy said that he’d like to make certain that the subcontractor pays for any down time.  The existing system will be left running while the twelve new VEWs are installed.

It is likely that the proposed schedule will have to be adjusted based on SVE test findings.  Brian Murphy will send the final SVE work plan addendum to EPA.

Discussion of Background Metals Study:

A response to BAH comments on the study (Parsons ES, June 1996) was sent by facsimile to AFCEE, BAH, and CSSA on 11 Nov 96.  Because time was limited at the meeting, it was agreed to go over only those items that Parsons ES does not concur with.  In particular, item 14 (method detection limits; MDLs vs practical quantitation limits; PQLs); to address, Parsons ES proposed to use sample quantitation limits (SQLs) by adjusting for moisture content.  AFCEE and BAH will review. 

Costs to address the comments will be determined after the amount of technical revisions are agreed between Parsons ES, AFCEE, CSSA, and BAH.  Should AFCEE, CSSA, and BAH concur with our response to comments, then additional work to revise the background study might be about two weeks of technical effort plus regulatory liaison and support for submittals.  Should AFCEE, CSSA, and BAH feel that other work is necessary to adequately revise the study, then costs will be determined after agreement of the level of effort necessary.  Susan Roberts will review the current budget of RL17.  Jo Mullen also indicated that technical language for any SOW modifications would be necessary.

Project Status to Date:

A handout of CSSA sites with potential contaminant levels above MDLs was provided.  The final analytical packages were received 5 Nov 96.  Parsons ES had previously received packages the first week of October, and found that previous problems with packages seen during Field Effort 1 had occurred again.  Parsons ES asked the laboratory to resolve the problem and resubmit the packages, as the latter were not acceptable as submitted.  During revisions, the laboratory found problems with the metals analyses, and as the samples were still within holding times, were able to re-run the analyses at no cost to the client.  The final packages are currently being validated.

A comparison between sample results and MDLs was possible between receipt of the packages and the meeting.  One site, SWMU B-1, did not have any results above MDLs.  As this was the only site where groundwater was detected, the results indicate that no groundwater monitor wells will be necessary.  Based on the comparison to MDLs, this is the only site that may not require further work.  However, completion of data validation will allow a more in-depth review of the sites that may be acceptable for closure.

Only one site has not undergone Field Effort 2 drilling and sampling - SWMU B-33.  This site was used as a example of background levels acceptable to the state where more than one soil type exists.  The TNRCC has not responded to the Parsons ES Sep 96 letter citing examples for a site-by-site basis for establishment of appropriate background.

Action Items

Parsons ES

SVE Treatability Study at SWMU B-3:

1)      Finalize the SVE Work Plan addenda within 30 days after receipt of comments.

2)      Begin contract modifications for use of drilling subcontractor services.

3)      Plan to complete new VEW installations in Dec 96.

Background Metals Study Revisions

1)      If necessary, set up teleconference for final discussion of revisions necessary for the background metals study.

2)      Upon agreement between Parsons ES, AFCEE, CSSA, and BAH of necessary technical revisions, prepare a cost estimate and schedule for submittal to AMC, AFCEE, and CSSA.

3)      Upon agreement of necessary costs and schedule, begin required revisions to the background metals study.  Revisions will be for specific pages.  It is anticipated that only those pages necessary to revise will be submitted, and that the entire report will not require reproduction.

Project Status/Field Effort 2

1)      Complete data validation after final revisions to the background metals study have been approved.

2)      Within 30 days of completion of the data validation, submit the draft Analytical ITIR for Field Effort 2.  This may not include work at SWMU B-33, as drilling and sampling have not yet been scheduled for this site.

3)      Within 30 days of receipt of comments, submit the final Analytical ITIR for Field Effort 2.

4)      Within 45 days of the final Analytical ITIR, submit draft closure certifications and reports.

AFCEE/BAH

SVE Treatability Study at SWMU B-3:

1)      Provide comments to the draft SVE Work Plan addenda.

Background Metals Study Revisions

1)      Review the 11 Nov 96 Parsons ES response to BAH comments on the background metals study, and provide additional comments as necessary.

2)      If appropriate to finalize agreement on those items to be revised in the study, participate in a teleconference to resolve any outstanding issues.

3)      Upon agreement between Parsons ES, AFCEE, CSSA, and BAH of necessary technical revisions, review Parsons ES’ cost estimate and schedule for making those changes.

4)      Upon agreement of necessary costs and schedule, review draft and final revisions to the background metals study.

CSSA

SVE Treatability Study at SWMU B-3:

1)      Prior to upgrades in the SWMU B-3 SVE system, CSSA will keep the existing system running so that VOC levels can be measured for a period of sustained testing.

2)      Provide comments on the draft SVE Work Plan addenda.

3)      Send the final SVE Work Plan addenda to EPA.

Background Metals Study Revisions

1)      Provide comments as necessary to the 11 Nov 96 Parsons ES response to BAH comments on the background metals study.

2)      Upon agreement between Parsons ES, AFCEE, CSSA, and BAH of necessary technical revisions, review Parsons ES’ cost estimate and schedule for making those changes.

3)      Upon agreement of necessary costs and schedule, review draft and final revisions to the background metals study.